effect of a 5-week by an honours project …lib-sca.hkbu.edu.hk/trsimage/hp/06017223.pdf1 effect of...

92
1 EFFECT OF A 5-WEEK MOTOR SKILLS-RELATED PROGRAM IN OVER FAT/OBESE CHILDREN BY HA LEE KWAN 06017223 AN HONOURS PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIPMENTS FOR THE DESIGN OF BACHELOR OF ARTS IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND RECREATION MANAGEMENT (HONOURS) HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY FEBRUARY 2009

Upload: others

Post on 03-Apr-2020

11 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

1

EFFECT OF A 5-WEEK

MOTOR SKILLS-RELATED PROGRAM

IN OVER FATOBESE CHILDREN

BY

HA LEE KWAN

06017223

AN HONOURS PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF

THE REQUIPMENTS FOR THE DESIGN OF

BACHELOR OF ARTS

IN

PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND RECREATION MANAGEMENT (HONOURS)

HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY

FEBRUARY 2009

2

24th May 2009

We hereby recommend that the Honours Project by Miss Ha

Lee Kwan entitled ldquoEffect of a 5-Week motor skills-related

program in over fatobese childrenrdquo 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 Associate Prof Lobo Louie

Chief Advisor Second Reader

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my express

my gratefulness to my chief advisor Dr C Chow for her

generous and professional guidance throughout the whole

project period I would also like to show my special thanks

to DR Lobo Louie for being my second reader Lastly I would

like to thank all the participants for their sincere

participation

Studentrsquos signature

Department of Physical Education

Hong Kong Baptist University

Date

4

ABSTRACT

The purpose was to investigate the effect of 5-week motor

skills-related program A total of 20 over fatobese children

participated in this study with 13 male and 7 female

Participants were tested before and after a 5-week

intervention using the locomotor subtest and object control

subtest from Test of Gross Motor Development (Ulrich 2000)

Paired sample t-test resulted in significant pre or post-test

group difference in TGMD-2 scores Both the performance of

locomotor skills and object control skills improved over time

The psychological effect of motor skills-related program is

discussed with attention on recommendations for future

research

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page

1 INTRODUCTIONhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1

Statement of the Problemhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip2

Hypothesishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip3

Definition of Termshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip4

Delimitationshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7

Limitationshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip8

Significance of the Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip9

2 REVIEW OF LITERATUREhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10

Definitions of

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2helliphelliphelliphelliphellip10

Motor Performance of young childrenhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip11

Motor skills-related program

on motor skill Developmenthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12

Relationship between motor skill performance

and body percent fathelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip15

Summaryhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip18

6

CHAPTER Page

3 METHODhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Sample of Selectionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Measuring Instrumenthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Testing Procedureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip21

Collection of Datehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip38

Method of Analysishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip38

4 ANALYSIS OF DATAhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip40

Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip40

Discussionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip58

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip68

Summary of Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip68

Conclusionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70

Recommendations of Further Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70

REFERENCEShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip72

APPENDIX helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76

A Record Sheets of the TGMD-2helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76

B Questionnaire of the Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip80

C Consent Form to Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip81

7

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participantshellip42

2Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participantshellip42

3Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participantshellip42

4 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the All Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43

5 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the Male Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43

6 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the Female Participantshelliphelliphelliphellip43

7 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of all the Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip44

8 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of the Male Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45

9 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of the Female Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45

10 The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations

by Gender for the Two Subtests before

8

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

11 The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations

by Gender for the Two Subtests after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

12 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw Scores of all participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

13 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw scores of Male participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip48

14 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw scores of Female participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip48

15 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49

16 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip50

9

17 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip51

18 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52

19 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip53

20 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip54

21 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55

22 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56

10

23 Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores

of all participants before and after

the 5-week Motor-Relatedhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57

24 Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores

of Each Skill from TGMD-2 of all participants

before and after the 5-week Motor-Related Programhellip58

11

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Proficiency of gross motor skills in early years is

a foundation to the introduction of physical fitness and the

development of more advanced and specific movement skills in

later life (Bouchard McPherson amp Taylor 1992 Gallahue amp

Qzmun 1998) Motor development is a fundamental part of

humanrsquos movement especially to children

Nowadays people are playing close attention with the

excess body fatness with abundant food and nutrition supplies

more people are having sedentary lifestyles These make

overweight and obese being more common particularly in the

developed cities For instance Flegal Carroll Ogden and

Johnson (2002) stated that 64 of the United States adult

population is considered either overweight or obese and this

percentage has increased over the last four decades

Further Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that

obesity is one of the top leading of preventable causes of

death with the increasing rates of adult and childhood

12

obesity Obesity is labeled as one of the most serious public

health problem Therefore in order to be healthy it is

important to control onersquos body fatness in an optimal state

On the other hand researches found that motor skills

performance is related to the body fatness DrsquoHondt et al

(2009) found that the obese children have a lower level of

general motor skills than the children with normal-weight

Foley et al (2008) suggested that the increase of motor skills

level and health-related fitness are the dominant causes to

decrease body fatness

The purpose of this study was to examine the improvement

of subjectrsquos motor skills after a 5-week motor skills-related

program The test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) was chosen

to assess the motor skill performance of the participants

Statement of Problem

The purpose of the study was to examine the motor

development after a one and a half month motor skills-related

program in the overweight children in Hong Kong During the

13

study both of the six locomotor skills and six object control

skills were measured

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses and questions were set in this

study

1 There would be no mean difference in the total raw score

of TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks motor skills-related

program

2 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of

locomotor subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

3 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of object

control subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

14

Definition of Terms

The following terms were operationally defined especially

for this study

Motor Skill

Motor skill is a combination of three series of movement

that produce a complete action It includes gross motor

skills fine motor skills and ambidexterity This study would

focus on the gross motor skills

Gross Motor Skill

Gross motor skill is a type of motor skill It includes

lifting ones head rolling over sitting up balancing

crawling and walking Gross motor development usually

follows a pattern Generally large muscles develop before

smaller ones thus gross motor development is the foundation

for developing skills in other areas (such as fine motor

skills) Development also generally moves from top to bottom

The first thing a baby usually learns to control is its eyes

15

Motor Performance

Motor performance refers to the act of how human use their

motor skill to perform a complete action

Motor Development

Motor development represents a human process it refers

to the change of humanrsquos ability of move and movement In the

present study motor development meant the development of the

childrsquos capacity to make sensory and motor decisions and to

use feedback to modify and estimate errors from onersquos behavior

and from these decision-making processes

Obesity

Ebbeling Pawlak amp Ludwig stated obesity as ldquoone of the

most significant public health problems globallyrdquo (p149) it

is commonly associated with serious disease like

cardiovascular diseases diabetes mellitus type 2

obstructive sleep apnea certain types of cancer and

osteoarthritis Obesity is onersquos body mass index (BMI) reached

30 kgm2 or higher means that excess body fat has increased

16

to a high level which might make a negative influence on health

Furthermore study of Logan (2008) indicated that childhood

obesity was a serious national health problem

Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that obesity

is one of the top leading of preventable causes of death with

the increasing rates of adult and childhood obesity Obesity

is labeled as one of the most serious public health problem

Overweight

Overweight is defined as having more body fat than healthy

range yet with a BMI of 25 kgm2-30 kgm2 being overweight

is having less fat than the situation of obesity It is more

common once a personrsquos lifestyle is sedentary or a personrsquos

food intake is more than a personrsquos body needs one would easily

become overweight

Physical Activity

Bouchard and Shephard (1994) indentified physical activity

as ldquoany body movement produced by the skeletal muscles that

results in a substantial increase over the resting energy

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

2

24th May 2009

We hereby recommend that the Honours Project by Miss Ha

Lee Kwan entitled ldquoEffect of a 5-Week motor skills-related

program in over fatobese childrenrdquo 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 Associate Prof Lobo Louie

Chief Advisor Second Reader

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my express

my gratefulness to my chief advisor Dr C Chow for her

generous and professional guidance throughout the whole

project period I would also like to show my special thanks

to DR Lobo Louie for being my second reader Lastly I would

like to thank all the participants for their sincere

participation

Studentrsquos signature

Department of Physical Education

Hong Kong Baptist University

Date

4

ABSTRACT

The purpose was to investigate the effect of 5-week motor

skills-related program A total of 20 over fatobese children

participated in this study with 13 male and 7 female

Participants were tested before and after a 5-week

intervention using the locomotor subtest and object control

subtest from Test of Gross Motor Development (Ulrich 2000)

Paired sample t-test resulted in significant pre or post-test

group difference in TGMD-2 scores Both the performance of

locomotor skills and object control skills improved over time

The psychological effect of motor skills-related program is

discussed with attention on recommendations for future

research

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page

1 INTRODUCTIONhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1

Statement of the Problemhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip2

Hypothesishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip3

Definition of Termshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip4

Delimitationshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7

Limitationshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip8

Significance of the Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip9

2 REVIEW OF LITERATUREhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10

Definitions of

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2helliphelliphelliphelliphellip10

Motor Performance of young childrenhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip11

Motor skills-related program

on motor skill Developmenthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12

Relationship between motor skill performance

and body percent fathelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip15

Summaryhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip18

6

CHAPTER Page

3 METHODhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Sample of Selectionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Measuring Instrumenthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Testing Procedureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip21

Collection of Datehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip38

Method of Analysishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip38

4 ANALYSIS OF DATAhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip40

Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip40

Discussionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip58

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip68

Summary of Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip68

Conclusionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70

Recommendations of Further Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70

REFERENCEShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip72

APPENDIX helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76

A Record Sheets of the TGMD-2helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76

B Questionnaire of the Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip80

C Consent Form to Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip81

7

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participantshellip42

2Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participantshellip42

3Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participantshellip42

4 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the All Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43

5 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the Male Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43

6 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the Female Participantshelliphelliphelliphellip43

7 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of all the Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip44

8 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of the Male Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45

9 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of the Female Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45

10 The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations

by Gender for the Two Subtests before

8

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

11 The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations

by Gender for the Two Subtests after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

12 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw Scores of all participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

13 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw scores of Male participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip48

14 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw scores of Female participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip48

15 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49

16 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip50

9

17 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip51

18 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52

19 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip53

20 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip54

21 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55

22 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56

10

23 Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores

of all participants before and after

the 5-week Motor-Relatedhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57

24 Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores

of Each Skill from TGMD-2 of all participants

before and after the 5-week Motor-Related Programhellip58

11

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Proficiency of gross motor skills in early years is

a foundation to the introduction of physical fitness and the

development of more advanced and specific movement skills in

later life (Bouchard McPherson amp Taylor 1992 Gallahue amp

Qzmun 1998) Motor development is a fundamental part of

humanrsquos movement especially to children

Nowadays people are playing close attention with the

excess body fatness with abundant food and nutrition supplies

more people are having sedentary lifestyles These make

overweight and obese being more common particularly in the

developed cities For instance Flegal Carroll Ogden and

Johnson (2002) stated that 64 of the United States adult

population is considered either overweight or obese and this

percentage has increased over the last four decades

Further Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that

obesity is one of the top leading of preventable causes of

death with the increasing rates of adult and childhood

12

obesity Obesity is labeled as one of the most serious public

health problem Therefore in order to be healthy it is

important to control onersquos body fatness in an optimal state

On the other hand researches found that motor skills

performance is related to the body fatness DrsquoHondt et al

(2009) found that the obese children have a lower level of

general motor skills than the children with normal-weight

Foley et al (2008) suggested that the increase of motor skills

level and health-related fitness are the dominant causes to

decrease body fatness

The purpose of this study was to examine the improvement

of subjectrsquos motor skills after a 5-week motor skills-related

program The test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) was chosen

to assess the motor skill performance of the participants

Statement of Problem

The purpose of the study was to examine the motor

development after a one and a half month motor skills-related

program in the overweight children in Hong Kong During the

13

study both of the six locomotor skills and six object control

skills were measured

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses and questions were set in this

study

1 There would be no mean difference in the total raw score

of TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks motor skills-related

program

2 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of

locomotor subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

3 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of object

control subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

14

Definition of Terms

The following terms were operationally defined especially

for this study

Motor Skill

Motor skill is a combination of three series of movement

that produce a complete action It includes gross motor

skills fine motor skills and ambidexterity This study would

focus on the gross motor skills

Gross Motor Skill

Gross motor skill is a type of motor skill It includes

lifting ones head rolling over sitting up balancing

crawling and walking Gross motor development usually

follows a pattern Generally large muscles develop before

smaller ones thus gross motor development is the foundation

for developing skills in other areas (such as fine motor

skills) Development also generally moves from top to bottom

The first thing a baby usually learns to control is its eyes

15

Motor Performance

Motor performance refers to the act of how human use their

motor skill to perform a complete action

Motor Development

Motor development represents a human process it refers

to the change of humanrsquos ability of move and movement In the

present study motor development meant the development of the

childrsquos capacity to make sensory and motor decisions and to

use feedback to modify and estimate errors from onersquos behavior

and from these decision-making processes

Obesity

Ebbeling Pawlak amp Ludwig stated obesity as ldquoone of the

most significant public health problems globallyrdquo (p149) it

is commonly associated with serious disease like

cardiovascular diseases diabetes mellitus type 2

obstructive sleep apnea certain types of cancer and

osteoarthritis Obesity is onersquos body mass index (BMI) reached

30 kgm2 or higher means that excess body fat has increased

16

to a high level which might make a negative influence on health

Furthermore study of Logan (2008) indicated that childhood

obesity was a serious national health problem

Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that obesity

is one of the top leading of preventable causes of death with

the increasing rates of adult and childhood obesity Obesity

is labeled as one of the most serious public health problem

Overweight

Overweight is defined as having more body fat than healthy

range yet with a BMI of 25 kgm2-30 kgm2 being overweight

is having less fat than the situation of obesity It is more

common once a personrsquos lifestyle is sedentary or a personrsquos

food intake is more than a personrsquos body needs one would easily

become overweight

Physical Activity

Bouchard and Shephard (1994) indentified physical activity

as ldquoany body movement produced by the skeletal muscles that

results in a substantial increase over the resting energy

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my express

my gratefulness to my chief advisor Dr C Chow for her

generous and professional guidance throughout the whole

project period I would also like to show my special thanks

to DR Lobo Louie for being my second reader Lastly I would

like to thank all the participants for their sincere

participation

Studentrsquos signature

Department of Physical Education

Hong Kong Baptist University

Date

4

ABSTRACT

The purpose was to investigate the effect of 5-week motor

skills-related program A total of 20 over fatobese children

participated in this study with 13 male and 7 female

Participants were tested before and after a 5-week

intervention using the locomotor subtest and object control

subtest from Test of Gross Motor Development (Ulrich 2000)

Paired sample t-test resulted in significant pre or post-test

group difference in TGMD-2 scores Both the performance of

locomotor skills and object control skills improved over time

The psychological effect of motor skills-related program is

discussed with attention on recommendations for future

research

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page

1 INTRODUCTIONhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1

Statement of the Problemhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip2

Hypothesishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip3

Definition of Termshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip4

Delimitationshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7

Limitationshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip8

Significance of the Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip9

2 REVIEW OF LITERATUREhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10

Definitions of

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2helliphelliphelliphelliphellip10

Motor Performance of young childrenhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip11

Motor skills-related program

on motor skill Developmenthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12

Relationship between motor skill performance

and body percent fathelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip15

Summaryhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip18

6

CHAPTER Page

3 METHODhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Sample of Selectionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Measuring Instrumenthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Testing Procedureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip21

Collection of Datehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip38

Method of Analysishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip38

4 ANALYSIS OF DATAhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip40

Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip40

Discussionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip58

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip68

Summary of Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip68

Conclusionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70

Recommendations of Further Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70

REFERENCEShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip72

APPENDIX helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76

A Record Sheets of the TGMD-2helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76

B Questionnaire of the Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip80

C Consent Form to Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip81

7

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participantshellip42

2Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participantshellip42

3Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participantshellip42

4 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the All Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43

5 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the Male Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43

6 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the Female Participantshelliphelliphelliphellip43

7 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of all the Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip44

8 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of the Male Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45

9 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of the Female Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45

10 The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations

by Gender for the Two Subtests before

8

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

11 The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations

by Gender for the Two Subtests after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

12 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw Scores of all participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

13 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw scores of Male participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip48

14 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw scores of Female participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip48

15 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49

16 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip50

9

17 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip51

18 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52

19 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip53

20 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip54

21 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55

22 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56

10

23 Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores

of all participants before and after

the 5-week Motor-Relatedhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57

24 Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores

of Each Skill from TGMD-2 of all participants

before and after the 5-week Motor-Related Programhellip58

11

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Proficiency of gross motor skills in early years is

a foundation to the introduction of physical fitness and the

development of more advanced and specific movement skills in

later life (Bouchard McPherson amp Taylor 1992 Gallahue amp

Qzmun 1998) Motor development is a fundamental part of

humanrsquos movement especially to children

Nowadays people are playing close attention with the

excess body fatness with abundant food and nutrition supplies

more people are having sedentary lifestyles These make

overweight and obese being more common particularly in the

developed cities For instance Flegal Carroll Ogden and

Johnson (2002) stated that 64 of the United States adult

population is considered either overweight or obese and this

percentage has increased over the last four decades

Further Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that

obesity is one of the top leading of preventable causes of

death with the increasing rates of adult and childhood

12

obesity Obesity is labeled as one of the most serious public

health problem Therefore in order to be healthy it is

important to control onersquos body fatness in an optimal state

On the other hand researches found that motor skills

performance is related to the body fatness DrsquoHondt et al

(2009) found that the obese children have a lower level of

general motor skills than the children with normal-weight

Foley et al (2008) suggested that the increase of motor skills

level and health-related fitness are the dominant causes to

decrease body fatness

The purpose of this study was to examine the improvement

of subjectrsquos motor skills after a 5-week motor skills-related

program The test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) was chosen

to assess the motor skill performance of the participants

Statement of Problem

The purpose of the study was to examine the motor

development after a one and a half month motor skills-related

program in the overweight children in Hong Kong During the

13

study both of the six locomotor skills and six object control

skills were measured

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses and questions were set in this

study

1 There would be no mean difference in the total raw score

of TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks motor skills-related

program

2 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of

locomotor subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

3 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of object

control subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

14

Definition of Terms

The following terms were operationally defined especially

for this study

Motor Skill

Motor skill is a combination of three series of movement

that produce a complete action It includes gross motor

skills fine motor skills and ambidexterity This study would

focus on the gross motor skills

Gross Motor Skill

Gross motor skill is a type of motor skill It includes

lifting ones head rolling over sitting up balancing

crawling and walking Gross motor development usually

follows a pattern Generally large muscles develop before

smaller ones thus gross motor development is the foundation

for developing skills in other areas (such as fine motor

skills) Development also generally moves from top to bottom

The first thing a baby usually learns to control is its eyes

15

Motor Performance

Motor performance refers to the act of how human use their

motor skill to perform a complete action

Motor Development

Motor development represents a human process it refers

to the change of humanrsquos ability of move and movement In the

present study motor development meant the development of the

childrsquos capacity to make sensory and motor decisions and to

use feedback to modify and estimate errors from onersquos behavior

and from these decision-making processes

Obesity

Ebbeling Pawlak amp Ludwig stated obesity as ldquoone of the

most significant public health problems globallyrdquo (p149) it

is commonly associated with serious disease like

cardiovascular diseases diabetes mellitus type 2

obstructive sleep apnea certain types of cancer and

osteoarthritis Obesity is onersquos body mass index (BMI) reached

30 kgm2 or higher means that excess body fat has increased

16

to a high level which might make a negative influence on health

Furthermore study of Logan (2008) indicated that childhood

obesity was a serious national health problem

Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that obesity

is one of the top leading of preventable causes of death with

the increasing rates of adult and childhood obesity Obesity

is labeled as one of the most serious public health problem

Overweight

Overweight is defined as having more body fat than healthy

range yet with a BMI of 25 kgm2-30 kgm2 being overweight

is having less fat than the situation of obesity It is more

common once a personrsquos lifestyle is sedentary or a personrsquos

food intake is more than a personrsquos body needs one would easily

become overweight

Physical Activity

Bouchard and Shephard (1994) indentified physical activity

as ldquoany body movement produced by the skeletal muscles that

results in a substantial increase over the resting energy

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

4

ABSTRACT

The purpose was to investigate the effect of 5-week motor

skills-related program A total of 20 over fatobese children

participated in this study with 13 male and 7 female

Participants were tested before and after a 5-week

intervention using the locomotor subtest and object control

subtest from Test of Gross Motor Development (Ulrich 2000)

Paired sample t-test resulted in significant pre or post-test

group difference in TGMD-2 scores Both the performance of

locomotor skills and object control skills improved over time

The psychological effect of motor skills-related program is

discussed with attention on recommendations for future

research

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page

1 INTRODUCTIONhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1

Statement of the Problemhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip2

Hypothesishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip3

Definition of Termshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip4

Delimitationshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7

Limitationshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip8

Significance of the Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip9

2 REVIEW OF LITERATUREhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10

Definitions of

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2helliphelliphelliphelliphellip10

Motor Performance of young childrenhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip11

Motor skills-related program

on motor skill Developmenthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12

Relationship between motor skill performance

and body percent fathelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip15

Summaryhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip18

6

CHAPTER Page

3 METHODhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Sample of Selectionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Measuring Instrumenthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Testing Procedureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip21

Collection of Datehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip38

Method of Analysishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip38

4 ANALYSIS OF DATAhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip40

Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip40

Discussionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip58

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip68

Summary of Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip68

Conclusionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70

Recommendations of Further Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70

REFERENCEShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip72

APPENDIX helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76

A Record Sheets of the TGMD-2helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76

B Questionnaire of the Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip80

C Consent Form to Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip81

7

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participantshellip42

2Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participantshellip42

3Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participantshellip42

4 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the All Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43

5 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the Male Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43

6 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the Female Participantshelliphelliphelliphellip43

7 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of all the Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip44

8 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of the Male Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45

9 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of the Female Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45

10 The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations

by Gender for the Two Subtests before

8

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

11 The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations

by Gender for the Two Subtests after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

12 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw Scores of all participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

13 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw scores of Male participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip48

14 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw scores of Female participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip48

15 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49

16 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip50

9

17 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip51

18 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52

19 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip53

20 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip54

21 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55

22 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56

10

23 Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores

of all participants before and after

the 5-week Motor-Relatedhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57

24 Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores

of Each Skill from TGMD-2 of all participants

before and after the 5-week Motor-Related Programhellip58

11

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Proficiency of gross motor skills in early years is

a foundation to the introduction of physical fitness and the

development of more advanced and specific movement skills in

later life (Bouchard McPherson amp Taylor 1992 Gallahue amp

Qzmun 1998) Motor development is a fundamental part of

humanrsquos movement especially to children

Nowadays people are playing close attention with the

excess body fatness with abundant food and nutrition supplies

more people are having sedentary lifestyles These make

overweight and obese being more common particularly in the

developed cities For instance Flegal Carroll Ogden and

Johnson (2002) stated that 64 of the United States adult

population is considered either overweight or obese and this

percentage has increased over the last four decades

Further Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that

obesity is one of the top leading of preventable causes of

death with the increasing rates of adult and childhood

12

obesity Obesity is labeled as one of the most serious public

health problem Therefore in order to be healthy it is

important to control onersquos body fatness in an optimal state

On the other hand researches found that motor skills

performance is related to the body fatness DrsquoHondt et al

(2009) found that the obese children have a lower level of

general motor skills than the children with normal-weight

Foley et al (2008) suggested that the increase of motor skills

level and health-related fitness are the dominant causes to

decrease body fatness

The purpose of this study was to examine the improvement

of subjectrsquos motor skills after a 5-week motor skills-related

program The test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) was chosen

to assess the motor skill performance of the participants

Statement of Problem

The purpose of the study was to examine the motor

development after a one and a half month motor skills-related

program in the overweight children in Hong Kong During the

13

study both of the six locomotor skills and six object control

skills were measured

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses and questions were set in this

study

1 There would be no mean difference in the total raw score

of TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks motor skills-related

program

2 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of

locomotor subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

3 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of object

control subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

14

Definition of Terms

The following terms were operationally defined especially

for this study

Motor Skill

Motor skill is a combination of three series of movement

that produce a complete action It includes gross motor

skills fine motor skills and ambidexterity This study would

focus on the gross motor skills

Gross Motor Skill

Gross motor skill is a type of motor skill It includes

lifting ones head rolling over sitting up balancing

crawling and walking Gross motor development usually

follows a pattern Generally large muscles develop before

smaller ones thus gross motor development is the foundation

for developing skills in other areas (such as fine motor

skills) Development also generally moves from top to bottom

The first thing a baby usually learns to control is its eyes

15

Motor Performance

Motor performance refers to the act of how human use their

motor skill to perform a complete action

Motor Development

Motor development represents a human process it refers

to the change of humanrsquos ability of move and movement In the

present study motor development meant the development of the

childrsquos capacity to make sensory and motor decisions and to

use feedback to modify and estimate errors from onersquos behavior

and from these decision-making processes

Obesity

Ebbeling Pawlak amp Ludwig stated obesity as ldquoone of the

most significant public health problems globallyrdquo (p149) it

is commonly associated with serious disease like

cardiovascular diseases diabetes mellitus type 2

obstructive sleep apnea certain types of cancer and

osteoarthritis Obesity is onersquos body mass index (BMI) reached

30 kgm2 or higher means that excess body fat has increased

16

to a high level which might make a negative influence on health

Furthermore study of Logan (2008) indicated that childhood

obesity was a serious national health problem

Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that obesity

is one of the top leading of preventable causes of death with

the increasing rates of adult and childhood obesity Obesity

is labeled as one of the most serious public health problem

Overweight

Overweight is defined as having more body fat than healthy

range yet with a BMI of 25 kgm2-30 kgm2 being overweight

is having less fat than the situation of obesity It is more

common once a personrsquos lifestyle is sedentary or a personrsquos

food intake is more than a personrsquos body needs one would easily

become overweight

Physical Activity

Bouchard and Shephard (1994) indentified physical activity

as ldquoany body movement produced by the skeletal muscles that

results in a substantial increase over the resting energy

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page

1 INTRODUCTIONhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1

Statement of the Problemhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip2

Hypothesishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip3

Definition of Termshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip4

Delimitationshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7

Limitationshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip8

Significance of the Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip9

2 REVIEW OF LITERATUREhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10

Definitions of

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2helliphelliphelliphelliphellip10

Motor Performance of young childrenhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip11

Motor skills-related program

on motor skill Developmenthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12

Relationship between motor skill performance

and body percent fathelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip15

Summaryhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip18

6

CHAPTER Page

3 METHODhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Sample of Selectionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Measuring Instrumenthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Testing Procedureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip21

Collection of Datehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip38

Method of Analysishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip38

4 ANALYSIS OF DATAhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip40

Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip40

Discussionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip58

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip68

Summary of Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip68

Conclusionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70

Recommendations of Further Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70

REFERENCEShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip72

APPENDIX helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76

A Record Sheets of the TGMD-2helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76

B Questionnaire of the Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip80

C Consent Form to Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip81

7

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participantshellip42

2Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participantshellip42

3Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participantshellip42

4 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the All Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43

5 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the Male Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43

6 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the Female Participantshelliphelliphelliphellip43

7 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of all the Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip44

8 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of the Male Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45

9 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of the Female Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45

10 The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations

by Gender for the Two Subtests before

8

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

11 The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations

by Gender for the Two Subtests after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

12 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw Scores of all participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

13 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw scores of Male participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip48

14 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw scores of Female participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip48

15 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49

16 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip50

9

17 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip51

18 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52

19 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip53

20 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip54

21 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55

22 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56

10

23 Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores

of all participants before and after

the 5-week Motor-Relatedhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57

24 Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores

of Each Skill from TGMD-2 of all participants

before and after the 5-week Motor-Related Programhellip58

11

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Proficiency of gross motor skills in early years is

a foundation to the introduction of physical fitness and the

development of more advanced and specific movement skills in

later life (Bouchard McPherson amp Taylor 1992 Gallahue amp

Qzmun 1998) Motor development is a fundamental part of

humanrsquos movement especially to children

Nowadays people are playing close attention with the

excess body fatness with abundant food and nutrition supplies

more people are having sedentary lifestyles These make

overweight and obese being more common particularly in the

developed cities For instance Flegal Carroll Ogden and

Johnson (2002) stated that 64 of the United States adult

population is considered either overweight or obese and this

percentage has increased over the last four decades

Further Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that

obesity is one of the top leading of preventable causes of

death with the increasing rates of adult and childhood

12

obesity Obesity is labeled as one of the most serious public

health problem Therefore in order to be healthy it is

important to control onersquos body fatness in an optimal state

On the other hand researches found that motor skills

performance is related to the body fatness DrsquoHondt et al

(2009) found that the obese children have a lower level of

general motor skills than the children with normal-weight

Foley et al (2008) suggested that the increase of motor skills

level and health-related fitness are the dominant causes to

decrease body fatness

The purpose of this study was to examine the improvement

of subjectrsquos motor skills after a 5-week motor skills-related

program The test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) was chosen

to assess the motor skill performance of the participants

Statement of Problem

The purpose of the study was to examine the motor

development after a one and a half month motor skills-related

program in the overweight children in Hong Kong During the

13

study both of the six locomotor skills and six object control

skills were measured

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses and questions were set in this

study

1 There would be no mean difference in the total raw score

of TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks motor skills-related

program

2 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of

locomotor subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

3 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of object

control subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

14

Definition of Terms

The following terms were operationally defined especially

for this study

Motor Skill

Motor skill is a combination of three series of movement

that produce a complete action It includes gross motor

skills fine motor skills and ambidexterity This study would

focus on the gross motor skills

Gross Motor Skill

Gross motor skill is a type of motor skill It includes

lifting ones head rolling over sitting up balancing

crawling and walking Gross motor development usually

follows a pattern Generally large muscles develop before

smaller ones thus gross motor development is the foundation

for developing skills in other areas (such as fine motor

skills) Development also generally moves from top to bottom

The first thing a baby usually learns to control is its eyes

15

Motor Performance

Motor performance refers to the act of how human use their

motor skill to perform a complete action

Motor Development

Motor development represents a human process it refers

to the change of humanrsquos ability of move and movement In the

present study motor development meant the development of the

childrsquos capacity to make sensory and motor decisions and to

use feedback to modify and estimate errors from onersquos behavior

and from these decision-making processes

Obesity

Ebbeling Pawlak amp Ludwig stated obesity as ldquoone of the

most significant public health problems globallyrdquo (p149) it

is commonly associated with serious disease like

cardiovascular diseases diabetes mellitus type 2

obstructive sleep apnea certain types of cancer and

osteoarthritis Obesity is onersquos body mass index (BMI) reached

30 kgm2 or higher means that excess body fat has increased

16

to a high level which might make a negative influence on health

Furthermore study of Logan (2008) indicated that childhood

obesity was a serious national health problem

Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that obesity

is one of the top leading of preventable causes of death with

the increasing rates of adult and childhood obesity Obesity

is labeled as one of the most serious public health problem

Overweight

Overweight is defined as having more body fat than healthy

range yet with a BMI of 25 kgm2-30 kgm2 being overweight

is having less fat than the situation of obesity It is more

common once a personrsquos lifestyle is sedentary or a personrsquos

food intake is more than a personrsquos body needs one would easily

become overweight

Physical Activity

Bouchard and Shephard (1994) indentified physical activity

as ldquoany body movement produced by the skeletal muscles that

results in a substantial increase over the resting energy

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

6

CHAPTER Page

3 METHODhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Sample of Selectionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Measuring Instrumenthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20

Testing Procedureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip21

Collection of Datehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip38

Method of Analysishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip38

4 ANALYSIS OF DATAhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip40

Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip40

Discussionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip58

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip68

Summary of Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip68

Conclusionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70

Recommendations of Further Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70

REFERENCEShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip72

APPENDIX helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76

A Record Sheets of the TGMD-2helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76

B Questionnaire of the Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip80

C Consent Form to Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip81

7

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participantshellip42

2Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participantshellip42

3Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participantshellip42

4 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the All Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43

5 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the Male Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43

6 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the Female Participantshelliphelliphelliphellip43

7 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of all the Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip44

8 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of the Male Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45

9 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of the Female Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45

10 The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations

by Gender for the Two Subtests before

8

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

11 The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations

by Gender for the Two Subtests after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

12 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw Scores of all participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

13 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw scores of Male participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip48

14 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw scores of Female participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip48

15 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49

16 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip50

9

17 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip51

18 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52

19 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip53

20 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip54

21 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55

22 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56

10

23 Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores

of all participants before and after

the 5-week Motor-Relatedhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57

24 Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores

of Each Skill from TGMD-2 of all participants

before and after the 5-week Motor-Related Programhellip58

11

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Proficiency of gross motor skills in early years is

a foundation to the introduction of physical fitness and the

development of more advanced and specific movement skills in

later life (Bouchard McPherson amp Taylor 1992 Gallahue amp

Qzmun 1998) Motor development is a fundamental part of

humanrsquos movement especially to children

Nowadays people are playing close attention with the

excess body fatness with abundant food and nutrition supplies

more people are having sedentary lifestyles These make

overweight and obese being more common particularly in the

developed cities For instance Flegal Carroll Ogden and

Johnson (2002) stated that 64 of the United States adult

population is considered either overweight or obese and this

percentage has increased over the last four decades

Further Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that

obesity is one of the top leading of preventable causes of

death with the increasing rates of adult and childhood

12

obesity Obesity is labeled as one of the most serious public

health problem Therefore in order to be healthy it is

important to control onersquos body fatness in an optimal state

On the other hand researches found that motor skills

performance is related to the body fatness DrsquoHondt et al

(2009) found that the obese children have a lower level of

general motor skills than the children with normal-weight

Foley et al (2008) suggested that the increase of motor skills

level and health-related fitness are the dominant causes to

decrease body fatness

The purpose of this study was to examine the improvement

of subjectrsquos motor skills after a 5-week motor skills-related

program The test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) was chosen

to assess the motor skill performance of the participants

Statement of Problem

The purpose of the study was to examine the motor

development after a one and a half month motor skills-related

program in the overweight children in Hong Kong During the

13

study both of the six locomotor skills and six object control

skills were measured

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses and questions were set in this

study

1 There would be no mean difference in the total raw score

of TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks motor skills-related

program

2 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of

locomotor subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

3 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of object

control subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

14

Definition of Terms

The following terms were operationally defined especially

for this study

Motor Skill

Motor skill is a combination of three series of movement

that produce a complete action It includes gross motor

skills fine motor skills and ambidexterity This study would

focus on the gross motor skills

Gross Motor Skill

Gross motor skill is a type of motor skill It includes

lifting ones head rolling over sitting up balancing

crawling and walking Gross motor development usually

follows a pattern Generally large muscles develop before

smaller ones thus gross motor development is the foundation

for developing skills in other areas (such as fine motor

skills) Development also generally moves from top to bottom

The first thing a baby usually learns to control is its eyes

15

Motor Performance

Motor performance refers to the act of how human use their

motor skill to perform a complete action

Motor Development

Motor development represents a human process it refers

to the change of humanrsquos ability of move and movement In the

present study motor development meant the development of the

childrsquos capacity to make sensory and motor decisions and to

use feedback to modify and estimate errors from onersquos behavior

and from these decision-making processes

Obesity

Ebbeling Pawlak amp Ludwig stated obesity as ldquoone of the

most significant public health problems globallyrdquo (p149) it

is commonly associated with serious disease like

cardiovascular diseases diabetes mellitus type 2

obstructive sleep apnea certain types of cancer and

osteoarthritis Obesity is onersquos body mass index (BMI) reached

30 kgm2 or higher means that excess body fat has increased

16

to a high level which might make a negative influence on health

Furthermore study of Logan (2008) indicated that childhood

obesity was a serious national health problem

Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that obesity

is one of the top leading of preventable causes of death with

the increasing rates of adult and childhood obesity Obesity

is labeled as one of the most serious public health problem

Overweight

Overweight is defined as having more body fat than healthy

range yet with a BMI of 25 kgm2-30 kgm2 being overweight

is having less fat than the situation of obesity It is more

common once a personrsquos lifestyle is sedentary or a personrsquos

food intake is more than a personrsquos body needs one would easily

become overweight

Physical Activity

Bouchard and Shephard (1994) indentified physical activity

as ldquoany body movement produced by the skeletal muscles that

results in a substantial increase over the resting energy

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

7

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participantshellip42

2Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participantshellip42

3Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participantshellip42

4 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the All Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43

5 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the Male Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43

6 Descriptive Results of Age

Exercise Habit of the Female Participantshelliphelliphelliphellip43

7 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of all the Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip44

8 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of the Male Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45

9 Testing Result of the Body Measurement

of the Female Participantshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45

10 The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations

by Gender for the Two Subtests before

8

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

11 The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations

by Gender for the Two Subtests after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

12 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw Scores of all participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

13 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw scores of Male participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip48

14 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw scores of Female participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip48

15 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49

16 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip50

9

17 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip51

18 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52

19 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip53

20 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip54

21 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55

22 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56

10

23 Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores

of all participants before and after

the 5-week Motor-Relatedhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57

24 Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores

of Each Skill from TGMD-2 of all participants

before and after the 5-week Motor-Related Programhellip58

11

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Proficiency of gross motor skills in early years is

a foundation to the introduction of physical fitness and the

development of more advanced and specific movement skills in

later life (Bouchard McPherson amp Taylor 1992 Gallahue amp

Qzmun 1998) Motor development is a fundamental part of

humanrsquos movement especially to children

Nowadays people are playing close attention with the

excess body fatness with abundant food and nutrition supplies

more people are having sedentary lifestyles These make

overweight and obese being more common particularly in the

developed cities For instance Flegal Carroll Ogden and

Johnson (2002) stated that 64 of the United States adult

population is considered either overweight or obese and this

percentage has increased over the last four decades

Further Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that

obesity is one of the top leading of preventable causes of

death with the increasing rates of adult and childhood

12

obesity Obesity is labeled as one of the most serious public

health problem Therefore in order to be healthy it is

important to control onersquos body fatness in an optimal state

On the other hand researches found that motor skills

performance is related to the body fatness DrsquoHondt et al

(2009) found that the obese children have a lower level of

general motor skills than the children with normal-weight

Foley et al (2008) suggested that the increase of motor skills

level and health-related fitness are the dominant causes to

decrease body fatness

The purpose of this study was to examine the improvement

of subjectrsquos motor skills after a 5-week motor skills-related

program The test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) was chosen

to assess the motor skill performance of the participants

Statement of Problem

The purpose of the study was to examine the motor

development after a one and a half month motor skills-related

program in the overweight children in Hong Kong During the

13

study both of the six locomotor skills and six object control

skills were measured

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses and questions were set in this

study

1 There would be no mean difference in the total raw score

of TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks motor skills-related

program

2 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of

locomotor subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

3 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of object

control subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

14

Definition of Terms

The following terms were operationally defined especially

for this study

Motor Skill

Motor skill is a combination of three series of movement

that produce a complete action It includes gross motor

skills fine motor skills and ambidexterity This study would

focus on the gross motor skills

Gross Motor Skill

Gross motor skill is a type of motor skill It includes

lifting ones head rolling over sitting up balancing

crawling and walking Gross motor development usually

follows a pattern Generally large muscles develop before

smaller ones thus gross motor development is the foundation

for developing skills in other areas (such as fine motor

skills) Development also generally moves from top to bottom

The first thing a baby usually learns to control is its eyes

15

Motor Performance

Motor performance refers to the act of how human use their

motor skill to perform a complete action

Motor Development

Motor development represents a human process it refers

to the change of humanrsquos ability of move and movement In the

present study motor development meant the development of the

childrsquos capacity to make sensory and motor decisions and to

use feedback to modify and estimate errors from onersquos behavior

and from these decision-making processes

Obesity

Ebbeling Pawlak amp Ludwig stated obesity as ldquoone of the

most significant public health problems globallyrdquo (p149) it

is commonly associated with serious disease like

cardiovascular diseases diabetes mellitus type 2

obstructive sleep apnea certain types of cancer and

osteoarthritis Obesity is onersquos body mass index (BMI) reached

30 kgm2 or higher means that excess body fat has increased

16

to a high level which might make a negative influence on health

Furthermore study of Logan (2008) indicated that childhood

obesity was a serious national health problem

Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that obesity

is one of the top leading of preventable causes of death with

the increasing rates of adult and childhood obesity Obesity

is labeled as one of the most serious public health problem

Overweight

Overweight is defined as having more body fat than healthy

range yet with a BMI of 25 kgm2-30 kgm2 being overweight

is having less fat than the situation of obesity It is more

common once a personrsquos lifestyle is sedentary or a personrsquos

food intake is more than a personrsquos body needs one would easily

become overweight

Physical Activity

Bouchard and Shephard (1994) indentified physical activity

as ldquoany body movement produced by the skeletal muscles that

results in a substantial increase over the resting energy

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

8

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

11 The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations

by Gender for the Two Subtests after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

12 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw Scores of all participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47

13 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw scores of Male participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip48

14 The improvement of Subtests and

Total Raw scores of Female participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip48

15 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49

16 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip50

9

17 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip51

18 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52

19 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip53

20 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip54

21 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55

22 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56

10

23 Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores

of all participants before and after

the 5-week Motor-Relatedhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57

24 Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores

of Each Skill from TGMD-2 of all participants

before and after the 5-week Motor-Related Programhellip58

11

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Proficiency of gross motor skills in early years is

a foundation to the introduction of physical fitness and the

development of more advanced and specific movement skills in

later life (Bouchard McPherson amp Taylor 1992 Gallahue amp

Qzmun 1998) Motor development is a fundamental part of

humanrsquos movement especially to children

Nowadays people are playing close attention with the

excess body fatness with abundant food and nutrition supplies

more people are having sedentary lifestyles These make

overweight and obese being more common particularly in the

developed cities For instance Flegal Carroll Ogden and

Johnson (2002) stated that 64 of the United States adult

population is considered either overweight or obese and this

percentage has increased over the last four decades

Further Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that

obesity is one of the top leading of preventable causes of

death with the increasing rates of adult and childhood

12

obesity Obesity is labeled as one of the most serious public

health problem Therefore in order to be healthy it is

important to control onersquos body fatness in an optimal state

On the other hand researches found that motor skills

performance is related to the body fatness DrsquoHondt et al

(2009) found that the obese children have a lower level of

general motor skills than the children with normal-weight

Foley et al (2008) suggested that the increase of motor skills

level and health-related fitness are the dominant causes to

decrease body fatness

The purpose of this study was to examine the improvement

of subjectrsquos motor skills after a 5-week motor skills-related

program The test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) was chosen

to assess the motor skill performance of the participants

Statement of Problem

The purpose of the study was to examine the motor

development after a one and a half month motor skills-related

program in the overweight children in Hong Kong During the

13

study both of the six locomotor skills and six object control

skills were measured

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses and questions were set in this

study

1 There would be no mean difference in the total raw score

of TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks motor skills-related

program

2 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of

locomotor subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

3 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of object

control subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

14

Definition of Terms

The following terms were operationally defined especially

for this study

Motor Skill

Motor skill is a combination of three series of movement

that produce a complete action It includes gross motor

skills fine motor skills and ambidexterity This study would

focus on the gross motor skills

Gross Motor Skill

Gross motor skill is a type of motor skill It includes

lifting ones head rolling over sitting up balancing

crawling and walking Gross motor development usually

follows a pattern Generally large muscles develop before

smaller ones thus gross motor development is the foundation

for developing skills in other areas (such as fine motor

skills) Development also generally moves from top to bottom

The first thing a baby usually learns to control is its eyes

15

Motor Performance

Motor performance refers to the act of how human use their

motor skill to perform a complete action

Motor Development

Motor development represents a human process it refers

to the change of humanrsquos ability of move and movement In the

present study motor development meant the development of the

childrsquos capacity to make sensory and motor decisions and to

use feedback to modify and estimate errors from onersquos behavior

and from these decision-making processes

Obesity

Ebbeling Pawlak amp Ludwig stated obesity as ldquoone of the

most significant public health problems globallyrdquo (p149) it

is commonly associated with serious disease like

cardiovascular diseases diabetes mellitus type 2

obstructive sleep apnea certain types of cancer and

osteoarthritis Obesity is onersquos body mass index (BMI) reached

30 kgm2 or higher means that excess body fat has increased

16

to a high level which might make a negative influence on health

Furthermore study of Logan (2008) indicated that childhood

obesity was a serious national health problem

Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that obesity

is one of the top leading of preventable causes of death with

the increasing rates of adult and childhood obesity Obesity

is labeled as one of the most serious public health problem

Overweight

Overweight is defined as having more body fat than healthy

range yet with a BMI of 25 kgm2-30 kgm2 being overweight

is having less fat than the situation of obesity It is more

common once a personrsquos lifestyle is sedentary or a personrsquos

food intake is more than a personrsquos body needs one would easily

become overweight

Physical Activity

Bouchard and Shephard (1994) indentified physical activity

as ldquoany body movement produced by the skeletal muscles that

results in a substantial increase over the resting energy

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

9

17 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Male Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip51

18 Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and

TGMD-2 for Female Participants after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52

19 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip53

20 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills before

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip54

21 Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55

22 Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery

on the 12 Motor Skills after

the 5-week Motor-Related Programhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56

10

23 Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores

of all participants before and after

the 5-week Motor-Relatedhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57

24 Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores

of Each Skill from TGMD-2 of all participants

before and after the 5-week Motor-Related Programhellip58

11

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Proficiency of gross motor skills in early years is

a foundation to the introduction of physical fitness and the

development of more advanced and specific movement skills in

later life (Bouchard McPherson amp Taylor 1992 Gallahue amp

Qzmun 1998) Motor development is a fundamental part of

humanrsquos movement especially to children

Nowadays people are playing close attention with the

excess body fatness with abundant food and nutrition supplies

more people are having sedentary lifestyles These make

overweight and obese being more common particularly in the

developed cities For instance Flegal Carroll Ogden and

Johnson (2002) stated that 64 of the United States adult

population is considered either overweight or obese and this

percentage has increased over the last four decades

Further Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that

obesity is one of the top leading of preventable causes of

death with the increasing rates of adult and childhood

12

obesity Obesity is labeled as one of the most serious public

health problem Therefore in order to be healthy it is

important to control onersquos body fatness in an optimal state

On the other hand researches found that motor skills

performance is related to the body fatness DrsquoHondt et al

(2009) found that the obese children have a lower level of

general motor skills than the children with normal-weight

Foley et al (2008) suggested that the increase of motor skills

level and health-related fitness are the dominant causes to

decrease body fatness

The purpose of this study was to examine the improvement

of subjectrsquos motor skills after a 5-week motor skills-related

program The test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) was chosen

to assess the motor skill performance of the participants

Statement of Problem

The purpose of the study was to examine the motor

development after a one and a half month motor skills-related

program in the overweight children in Hong Kong During the

13

study both of the six locomotor skills and six object control

skills were measured

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses and questions were set in this

study

1 There would be no mean difference in the total raw score

of TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks motor skills-related

program

2 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of

locomotor subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

3 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of object

control subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

14

Definition of Terms

The following terms were operationally defined especially

for this study

Motor Skill

Motor skill is a combination of three series of movement

that produce a complete action It includes gross motor

skills fine motor skills and ambidexterity This study would

focus on the gross motor skills

Gross Motor Skill

Gross motor skill is a type of motor skill It includes

lifting ones head rolling over sitting up balancing

crawling and walking Gross motor development usually

follows a pattern Generally large muscles develop before

smaller ones thus gross motor development is the foundation

for developing skills in other areas (such as fine motor

skills) Development also generally moves from top to bottom

The first thing a baby usually learns to control is its eyes

15

Motor Performance

Motor performance refers to the act of how human use their

motor skill to perform a complete action

Motor Development

Motor development represents a human process it refers

to the change of humanrsquos ability of move and movement In the

present study motor development meant the development of the

childrsquos capacity to make sensory and motor decisions and to

use feedback to modify and estimate errors from onersquos behavior

and from these decision-making processes

Obesity

Ebbeling Pawlak amp Ludwig stated obesity as ldquoone of the

most significant public health problems globallyrdquo (p149) it

is commonly associated with serious disease like

cardiovascular diseases diabetes mellitus type 2

obstructive sleep apnea certain types of cancer and

osteoarthritis Obesity is onersquos body mass index (BMI) reached

30 kgm2 or higher means that excess body fat has increased

16

to a high level which might make a negative influence on health

Furthermore study of Logan (2008) indicated that childhood

obesity was a serious national health problem

Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that obesity

is one of the top leading of preventable causes of death with

the increasing rates of adult and childhood obesity Obesity

is labeled as one of the most serious public health problem

Overweight

Overweight is defined as having more body fat than healthy

range yet with a BMI of 25 kgm2-30 kgm2 being overweight

is having less fat than the situation of obesity It is more

common once a personrsquos lifestyle is sedentary or a personrsquos

food intake is more than a personrsquos body needs one would easily

become overweight

Physical Activity

Bouchard and Shephard (1994) indentified physical activity

as ldquoany body movement produced by the skeletal muscles that

results in a substantial increase over the resting energy

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

10

23 Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores

of all participants before and after

the 5-week Motor-Relatedhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57

24 Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores

of Each Skill from TGMD-2 of all participants

before and after the 5-week Motor-Related Programhellip58

11

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Proficiency of gross motor skills in early years is

a foundation to the introduction of physical fitness and the

development of more advanced and specific movement skills in

later life (Bouchard McPherson amp Taylor 1992 Gallahue amp

Qzmun 1998) Motor development is a fundamental part of

humanrsquos movement especially to children

Nowadays people are playing close attention with the

excess body fatness with abundant food and nutrition supplies

more people are having sedentary lifestyles These make

overweight and obese being more common particularly in the

developed cities For instance Flegal Carroll Ogden and

Johnson (2002) stated that 64 of the United States adult

population is considered either overweight or obese and this

percentage has increased over the last four decades

Further Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that

obesity is one of the top leading of preventable causes of

death with the increasing rates of adult and childhood

12

obesity Obesity is labeled as one of the most serious public

health problem Therefore in order to be healthy it is

important to control onersquos body fatness in an optimal state

On the other hand researches found that motor skills

performance is related to the body fatness DrsquoHondt et al

(2009) found that the obese children have a lower level of

general motor skills than the children with normal-weight

Foley et al (2008) suggested that the increase of motor skills

level and health-related fitness are the dominant causes to

decrease body fatness

The purpose of this study was to examine the improvement

of subjectrsquos motor skills after a 5-week motor skills-related

program The test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) was chosen

to assess the motor skill performance of the participants

Statement of Problem

The purpose of the study was to examine the motor

development after a one and a half month motor skills-related

program in the overweight children in Hong Kong During the

13

study both of the six locomotor skills and six object control

skills were measured

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses and questions were set in this

study

1 There would be no mean difference in the total raw score

of TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks motor skills-related

program

2 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of

locomotor subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

3 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of object

control subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

14

Definition of Terms

The following terms were operationally defined especially

for this study

Motor Skill

Motor skill is a combination of three series of movement

that produce a complete action It includes gross motor

skills fine motor skills and ambidexterity This study would

focus on the gross motor skills

Gross Motor Skill

Gross motor skill is a type of motor skill It includes

lifting ones head rolling over sitting up balancing

crawling and walking Gross motor development usually

follows a pattern Generally large muscles develop before

smaller ones thus gross motor development is the foundation

for developing skills in other areas (such as fine motor

skills) Development also generally moves from top to bottom

The first thing a baby usually learns to control is its eyes

15

Motor Performance

Motor performance refers to the act of how human use their

motor skill to perform a complete action

Motor Development

Motor development represents a human process it refers

to the change of humanrsquos ability of move and movement In the

present study motor development meant the development of the

childrsquos capacity to make sensory and motor decisions and to

use feedback to modify and estimate errors from onersquos behavior

and from these decision-making processes

Obesity

Ebbeling Pawlak amp Ludwig stated obesity as ldquoone of the

most significant public health problems globallyrdquo (p149) it

is commonly associated with serious disease like

cardiovascular diseases diabetes mellitus type 2

obstructive sleep apnea certain types of cancer and

osteoarthritis Obesity is onersquos body mass index (BMI) reached

30 kgm2 or higher means that excess body fat has increased

16

to a high level which might make a negative influence on health

Furthermore study of Logan (2008) indicated that childhood

obesity was a serious national health problem

Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that obesity

is one of the top leading of preventable causes of death with

the increasing rates of adult and childhood obesity Obesity

is labeled as one of the most serious public health problem

Overweight

Overweight is defined as having more body fat than healthy

range yet with a BMI of 25 kgm2-30 kgm2 being overweight

is having less fat than the situation of obesity It is more

common once a personrsquos lifestyle is sedentary or a personrsquos

food intake is more than a personrsquos body needs one would easily

become overweight

Physical Activity

Bouchard and Shephard (1994) indentified physical activity

as ldquoany body movement produced by the skeletal muscles that

results in a substantial increase over the resting energy

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

11

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Proficiency of gross motor skills in early years is

a foundation to the introduction of physical fitness and the

development of more advanced and specific movement skills in

later life (Bouchard McPherson amp Taylor 1992 Gallahue amp

Qzmun 1998) Motor development is a fundamental part of

humanrsquos movement especially to children

Nowadays people are playing close attention with the

excess body fatness with abundant food and nutrition supplies

more people are having sedentary lifestyles These make

overweight and obese being more common particularly in the

developed cities For instance Flegal Carroll Ogden and

Johnson (2002) stated that 64 of the United States adult

population is considered either overweight or obese and this

percentage has increased over the last four decades

Further Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that

obesity is one of the top leading of preventable causes of

death with the increasing rates of adult and childhood

12

obesity Obesity is labeled as one of the most serious public

health problem Therefore in order to be healthy it is

important to control onersquos body fatness in an optimal state

On the other hand researches found that motor skills

performance is related to the body fatness DrsquoHondt et al

(2009) found that the obese children have a lower level of

general motor skills than the children with normal-weight

Foley et al (2008) suggested that the increase of motor skills

level and health-related fitness are the dominant causes to

decrease body fatness

The purpose of this study was to examine the improvement

of subjectrsquos motor skills after a 5-week motor skills-related

program The test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) was chosen

to assess the motor skill performance of the participants

Statement of Problem

The purpose of the study was to examine the motor

development after a one and a half month motor skills-related

program in the overweight children in Hong Kong During the

13

study both of the six locomotor skills and six object control

skills were measured

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses and questions were set in this

study

1 There would be no mean difference in the total raw score

of TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks motor skills-related

program

2 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of

locomotor subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

3 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of object

control subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

14

Definition of Terms

The following terms were operationally defined especially

for this study

Motor Skill

Motor skill is a combination of three series of movement

that produce a complete action It includes gross motor

skills fine motor skills and ambidexterity This study would

focus on the gross motor skills

Gross Motor Skill

Gross motor skill is a type of motor skill It includes

lifting ones head rolling over sitting up balancing

crawling and walking Gross motor development usually

follows a pattern Generally large muscles develop before

smaller ones thus gross motor development is the foundation

for developing skills in other areas (such as fine motor

skills) Development also generally moves from top to bottom

The first thing a baby usually learns to control is its eyes

15

Motor Performance

Motor performance refers to the act of how human use their

motor skill to perform a complete action

Motor Development

Motor development represents a human process it refers

to the change of humanrsquos ability of move and movement In the

present study motor development meant the development of the

childrsquos capacity to make sensory and motor decisions and to

use feedback to modify and estimate errors from onersquos behavior

and from these decision-making processes

Obesity

Ebbeling Pawlak amp Ludwig stated obesity as ldquoone of the

most significant public health problems globallyrdquo (p149) it

is commonly associated with serious disease like

cardiovascular diseases diabetes mellitus type 2

obstructive sleep apnea certain types of cancer and

osteoarthritis Obesity is onersquos body mass index (BMI) reached

30 kgm2 or higher means that excess body fat has increased

16

to a high level which might make a negative influence on health

Furthermore study of Logan (2008) indicated that childhood

obesity was a serious national health problem

Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that obesity

is one of the top leading of preventable causes of death with

the increasing rates of adult and childhood obesity Obesity

is labeled as one of the most serious public health problem

Overweight

Overweight is defined as having more body fat than healthy

range yet with a BMI of 25 kgm2-30 kgm2 being overweight

is having less fat than the situation of obesity It is more

common once a personrsquos lifestyle is sedentary or a personrsquos

food intake is more than a personrsquos body needs one would easily

become overweight

Physical Activity

Bouchard and Shephard (1994) indentified physical activity

as ldquoany body movement produced by the skeletal muscles that

results in a substantial increase over the resting energy

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

12

obesity Obesity is labeled as one of the most serious public

health problem Therefore in order to be healthy it is

important to control onersquos body fatness in an optimal state

On the other hand researches found that motor skills

performance is related to the body fatness DrsquoHondt et al

(2009) found that the obese children have a lower level of

general motor skills than the children with normal-weight

Foley et al (2008) suggested that the increase of motor skills

level and health-related fitness are the dominant causes to

decrease body fatness

The purpose of this study was to examine the improvement

of subjectrsquos motor skills after a 5-week motor skills-related

program The test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) was chosen

to assess the motor skill performance of the participants

Statement of Problem

The purpose of the study was to examine the motor

development after a one and a half month motor skills-related

program in the overweight children in Hong Kong During the

13

study both of the six locomotor skills and six object control

skills were measured

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses and questions were set in this

study

1 There would be no mean difference in the total raw score

of TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks motor skills-related

program

2 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of

locomotor subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

3 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of object

control subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

14

Definition of Terms

The following terms were operationally defined especially

for this study

Motor Skill

Motor skill is a combination of three series of movement

that produce a complete action It includes gross motor

skills fine motor skills and ambidexterity This study would

focus on the gross motor skills

Gross Motor Skill

Gross motor skill is a type of motor skill It includes

lifting ones head rolling over sitting up balancing

crawling and walking Gross motor development usually

follows a pattern Generally large muscles develop before

smaller ones thus gross motor development is the foundation

for developing skills in other areas (such as fine motor

skills) Development also generally moves from top to bottom

The first thing a baby usually learns to control is its eyes

15

Motor Performance

Motor performance refers to the act of how human use their

motor skill to perform a complete action

Motor Development

Motor development represents a human process it refers

to the change of humanrsquos ability of move and movement In the

present study motor development meant the development of the

childrsquos capacity to make sensory and motor decisions and to

use feedback to modify and estimate errors from onersquos behavior

and from these decision-making processes

Obesity

Ebbeling Pawlak amp Ludwig stated obesity as ldquoone of the

most significant public health problems globallyrdquo (p149) it

is commonly associated with serious disease like

cardiovascular diseases diabetes mellitus type 2

obstructive sleep apnea certain types of cancer and

osteoarthritis Obesity is onersquos body mass index (BMI) reached

30 kgm2 or higher means that excess body fat has increased

16

to a high level which might make a negative influence on health

Furthermore study of Logan (2008) indicated that childhood

obesity was a serious national health problem

Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that obesity

is one of the top leading of preventable causes of death with

the increasing rates of adult and childhood obesity Obesity

is labeled as one of the most serious public health problem

Overweight

Overweight is defined as having more body fat than healthy

range yet with a BMI of 25 kgm2-30 kgm2 being overweight

is having less fat than the situation of obesity It is more

common once a personrsquos lifestyle is sedentary or a personrsquos

food intake is more than a personrsquos body needs one would easily

become overweight

Physical Activity

Bouchard and Shephard (1994) indentified physical activity

as ldquoany body movement produced by the skeletal muscles that

results in a substantial increase over the resting energy

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

13

study both of the six locomotor skills and six object control

skills were measured

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses and questions were set in this

study

1 There would be no mean difference in the total raw score

of TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks motor skills-related

program

2 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of

locomotor subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

3 There would be no mean difference in the raw score of object

control subtest from TGMD-2 before and after the 5-weeks

motor skills-related program

14

Definition of Terms

The following terms were operationally defined especially

for this study

Motor Skill

Motor skill is a combination of three series of movement

that produce a complete action It includes gross motor

skills fine motor skills and ambidexterity This study would

focus on the gross motor skills

Gross Motor Skill

Gross motor skill is a type of motor skill It includes

lifting ones head rolling over sitting up balancing

crawling and walking Gross motor development usually

follows a pattern Generally large muscles develop before

smaller ones thus gross motor development is the foundation

for developing skills in other areas (such as fine motor

skills) Development also generally moves from top to bottom

The first thing a baby usually learns to control is its eyes

15

Motor Performance

Motor performance refers to the act of how human use their

motor skill to perform a complete action

Motor Development

Motor development represents a human process it refers

to the change of humanrsquos ability of move and movement In the

present study motor development meant the development of the

childrsquos capacity to make sensory and motor decisions and to

use feedback to modify and estimate errors from onersquos behavior

and from these decision-making processes

Obesity

Ebbeling Pawlak amp Ludwig stated obesity as ldquoone of the

most significant public health problems globallyrdquo (p149) it

is commonly associated with serious disease like

cardiovascular diseases diabetes mellitus type 2

obstructive sleep apnea certain types of cancer and

osteoarthritis Obesity is onersquos body mass index (BMI) reached

30 kgm2 or higher means that excess body fat has increased

16

to a high level which might make a negative influence on health

Furthermore study of Logan (2008) indicated that childhood

obesity was a serious national health problem

Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that obesity

is one of the top leading of preventable causes of death with

the increasing rates of adult and childhood obesity Obesity

is labeled as one of the most serious public health problem

Overweight

Overweight is defined as having more body fat than healthy

range yet with a BMI of 25 kgm2-30 kgm2 being overweight

is having less fat than the situation of obesity It is more

common once a personrsquos lifestyle is sedentary or a personrsquos

food intake is more than a personrsquos body needs one would easily

become overweight

Physical Activity

Bouchard and Shephard (1994) indentified physical activity

as ldquoany body movement produced by the skeletal muscles that

results in a substantial increase over the resting energy

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

14

Definition of Terms

The following terms were operationally defined especially

for this study

Motor Skill

Motor skill is a combination of three series of movement

that produce a complete action It includes gross motor

skills fine motor skills and ambidexterity This study would

focus on the gross motor skills

Gross Motor Skill

Gross motor skill is a type of motor skill It includes

lifting ones head rolling over sitting up balancing

crawling and walking Gross motor development usually

follows a pattern Generally large muscles develop before

smaller ones thus gross motor development is the foundation

for developing skills in other areas (such as fine motor

skills) Development also generally moves from top to bottom

The first thing a baby usually learns to control is its eyes

15

Motor Performance

Motor performance refers to the act of how human use their

motor skill to perform a complete action

Motor Development

Motor development represents a human process it refers

to the change of humanrsquos ability of move and movement In the

present study motor development meant the development of the

childrsquos capacity to make sensory and motor decisions and to

use feedback to modify and estimate errors from onersquos behavior

and from these decision-making processes

Obesity

Ebbeling Pawlak amp Ludwig stated obesity as ldquoone of the

most significant public health problems globallyrdquo (p149) it

is commonly associated with serious disease like

cardiovascular diseases diabetes mellitus type 2

obstructive sleep apnea certain types of cancer and

osteoarthritis Obesity is onersquos body mass index (BMI) reached

30 kgm2 or higher means that excess body fat has increased

16

to a high level which might make a negative influence on health

Furthermore study of Logan (2008) indicated that childhood

obesity was a serious national health problem

Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that obesity

is one of the top leading of preventable causes of death with

the increasing rates of adult and childhood obesity Obesity

is labeled as one of the most serious public health problem

Overweight

Overweight is defined as having more body fat than healthy

range yet with a BMI of 25 kgm2-30 kgm2 being overweight

is having less fat than the situation of obesity It is more

common once a personrsquos lifestyle is sedentary or a personrsquos

food intake is more than a personrsquos body needs one would easily

become overweight

Physical Activity

Bouchard and Shephard (1994) indentified physical activity

as ldquoany body movement produced by the skeletal muscles that

results in a substantial increase over the resting energy

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

15

Motor Performance

Motor performance refers to the act of how human use their

motor skill to perform a complete action

Motor Development

Motor development represents a human process it refers

to the change of humanrsquos ability of move and movement In the

present study motor development meant the development of the

childrsquos capacity to make sensory and motor decisions and to

use feedback to modify and estimate errors from onersquos behavior

and from these decision-making processes

Obesity

Ebbeling Pawlak amp Ludwig stated obesity as ldquoone of the

most significant public health problems globallyrdquo (p149) it

is commonly associated with serious disease like

cardiovascular diseases diabetes mellitus type 2

obstructive sleep apnea certain types of cancer and

osteoarthritis Obesity is onersquos body mass index (BMI) reached

30 kgm2 or higher means that excess body fat has increased

16

to a high level which might make a negative influence on health

Furthermore study of Logan (2008) indicated that childhood

obesity was a serious national health problem

Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that obesity

is one of the top leading of preventable causes of death with

the increasing rates of adult and childhood obesity Obesity

is labeled as one of the most serious public health problem

Overweight

Overweight is defined as having more body fat than healthy

range yet with a BMI of 25 kgm2-30 kgm2 being overweight

is having less fat than the situation of obesity It is more

common once a personrsquos lifestyle is sedentary or a personrsquos

food intake is more than a personrsquos body needs one would easily

become overweight

Physical Activity

Bouchard and Shephard (1994) indentified physical activity

as ldquoany body movement produced by the skeletal muscles that

results in a substantial increase over the resting energy

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

16

to a high level which might make a negative influence on health

Furthermore study of Logan (2008) indicated that childhood

obesity was a serious national health problem

Barness Opitz Barness (2007) pointed out that obesity

is one of the top leading of preventable causes of death with

the increasing rates of adult and childhood obesity Obesity

is labeled as one of the most serious public health problem

Overweight

Overweight is defined as having more body fat than healthy

range yet with a BMI of 25 kgm2-30 kgm2 being overweight

is having less fat than the situation of obesity It is more

common once a personrsquos lifestyle is sedentary or a personrsquos

food intake is more than a personrsquos body needs one would easily

become overweight

Physical Activity

Bouchard and Shephard (1994) indentified physical activity

as ldquoany body movement produced by the skeletal muscles that

results in a substantial increase over the resting energy

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

17

expeniturerdquo A physically active individuals is a person who

spend most of his or her time on physical activity

Physical Inactivity

Physical inactivity is the primary reason which cause

increased BMI and resulted in over fat or obesity

Delimitation

The study was delimited to the following

1 13 boys (n = 13) and 7 girls (n = 7) were selected (N = 20)

All participants were selected from patients of Kwong Wah

Hospital

2 The participants are selected by the Kwong Wah Hospital

therefore the age of participants is not controllable

3 The participantsrsquo body mass index (BMI) was no less than

25 kgm2

4 The tests were conducted during the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program

5 The result of the Test of Gross Development-Second Edition

(TGMD-2 Ulrich 2000) was measured

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

18

6 The participants were required to perform two trials in each

motor performance in both the pre-assessment test and

post-assessment test

Limitations

The study was limited by the following factors

1 Due to the small sample size (N =20) the result of the study

could not guarantee a good generalization

2 Learning effect might occur as three times of trials were

needed in each motor skill of both the pre-assessment test

and post-assessment test this would affect the result of

the study

3 The participants might learn from othersrsquo experience and

this might lead to a learning effect

4 The participantsrsquo attitude toward the test might affect the

results of the study

5 The ages of participants were uncontrollable

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

19

Significance of the Study

Many researches have successfully proved that

increased BMI was related to motor skills performance among

children Thus lack of studies focus on the Hong Kong Chinese

children this study provides data in the topic as well as

helps to understand the motor skills level among Hong Kong

Chinese children Besides the 5-week motor skills-related

program is designed for investigating the difference of motor

performance among children before and after the motor

intervention

The study can be beneficial to physical education

teachers and coaches As it provide useful information for

physical educators for planning physical activities for

children in different level of motor skills Moreover it also

provides opportunities for them to participate in physical

activities

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

20

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature of the study was focused on four

aspects (a) The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)

(b) motor skills performance of young children (c) motor

skills-related program on motor skill development (d)

relationship between motor skills performance and body

percent fat (e) summary

The Test of Gross Motor Development-2

The second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development

(TGMD-2) was a well-developed implement of testing the gross

motor skills ability functioning in youth aged from 3 to 10

years old According to Ulrich (2000) TGMD-2 was made up by

two subtests locomotor and object control In the locomotor

subtest it included six gross motor skills (Run Gallop Hop

Leap Horizontal Jump and Slide) that require fluid

coordinated movements of body of children as they moved in

one or another direction Aside of the locomotor skills

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

21

object control subtest also included six gross motor skills

(Striking a Sationary Ball Stationary Dribble Catch Kick

Overhand Throw and Underhand Roll) while these skills were

demonstrated by effective throwing catching and striking

movements

Furthermore the construct validity of the TGMD-2 in 2006

Wong conducted a study in order to find out the answer A number

of 1228 participants were participated in the study and the

result proved that TGMD-2 was a reliable tool

Motor Skill Performance of Young Children

Motor development is a fundamental component for young

children to produce an effective and fluent action In order

to assess motor skills performance of young children in an

efficiency way a reliable tool is needed Therefore Wong

and Cheung (2007) conducted a research about structural

validity of TGMD-2

Furthermore motor skills performance of children in Hong

Kong is drawing more attention now Wong and Cheung (2006)

mastered norm-referenced values of the TGMD-2 for Hong Kong

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

22

Chinese children Also during the test the result of the

twelve gross motor skill tests items two subtests scores and

the total score of TGMD-2 of the elder group were better when

comparing with the younger group This was significantly

showed that the motor skills ability would be developed

following the age trend The results have successfully

developed a database for subsequent evaluation of childrens

gross motor skills performance

More than that in 2009 Fliers et al suggested that poor

motor performance was related to attention-deficit or

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A total number of 275 children

were involved in the study and result showed that the

ADHD-affected children had poorer motor performance than

normal children

Motor Skills-Related Program on Motor Skill Development

It was believed that the motor skills ability of children

who were being over weight or obese was poorer than normal

children at the same age In 2007 Roncesvalles Isidro

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

23

Meaney and Hart conducted a study about the motor skill

development of children at risk for obesity they aimed to

investigate whether the participants could exhibit motor

skill performance at age-expected levels However results

showed that the motor skills ability of participants were and

could not meet the standard of normal children

Additionally in the study of Foley et al (2008) they

found out that the special population should focus more on

their fundamental motor skills improvement Therefore more

physical education plan of motor skills ability improvement

should be assigned By these result it was understood that

the motor skills-related program is needed for people who were

performing poorly on this aspect

Does a motor skills-related program effectively help with

the improvement of motor skills ability The answer was showed

in the study of Heather (2002) She investigated the effect

of an 8-week motor skill intervention among children From

the investigation sshe discovered that the motor skills

ability especially on the object control skills could be

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

24

significantly improved after the 8-week motor skill

intervention program While Lee and Zhu (2005) indicated that

object control was the most difficult category in TGMD-2 the

pervious studies showed that it could be improved by motor

skills intervention effectively

Whatrsquos more similar result was found in the study of

Goodway and Branta They examined the influence of a 12-week

motor skill intervention on motor skill development of

children the result reflected that it is useful to provide

motor skills-related program for improving childrenrsquos motor

skills Moreover a well-organizing program schedule was

needed and it was better to have experienced instructors and

provide appropriate equipments within the program Last but

not least the instructors would better use

positive-corrective feedback in easy command to children

These are all essential elements for a successful program

Apart from the effect of a motor skill invention with

suitable duration aging was another reason which would lead

to the motor skill development too Study of Anshel (1986)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

25

pointed out that motor skills of children were developed by

aging naturally Study of Wong and Cheung (2006) found a

similar result as well They specifically indicated that the

mastery level of gross motor skills among Hong Kong Chinese

children was following an age trend Although the motor

skills-related program was not the primary reason for

improving motor skills ability it was without doubt that this

was an efficient method to quicken the motor development among

children

Relationship between Motor Skill Performance

and Body Percent Fat

Body fatness and motor skill performance are tightly

related this statement was successfully established in

previous study The study of Graf et al (2004) and Okely et

al (2004) proved the significance of predicting body fatness

by using motor skills test performance Similarly Colella

et al conducted a study about motor performance in non

overweight and overweight children A total number of 210

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

26

children aged from 8 to 10 years were participated in this

study Poorer motor performance was found on the overweight

participants especially on weight-bearing tasks

On the other hand Ebbeling et al (2002) pointed out that

obesity was one of the most significant public health problems

globally because it is associated with coronary heart disease

stroke and type II diabetes Therefore it was brooked no

delay for people to find out an efficient way to decrease the

prevalence of obesity A research inspected by Foley et al

(2008) examined about the relationship between motor skills

health related physical fitness and body fatness in South

Korean Adolescents The result pointed out that subjectsrsquo

motor development are significantly contributed to

health-related fitness level thus the study also indicated

that it is a principal cause to increase both motor skills

and health-related fitness in order to decrease body fatness

In order words it was expected that the increased motor skill

was helpful on reducing body fatness

Besides a research which was explored by DrsquoHondt et al

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

27

(2008) examined if childhood obesity would affect fine motor

skill performance under different postural constraints 273

children with normal weight 202 overweight children and 65

obese children were involved in the study The results

expressed that being overweight or obese was detrimental for

fine motor skill performance which confirms the postural

control difficulties observed in overweight and obese

children

Similarly DrsquoHondt et al (2009) conducted a study to

examine the relationship between motor skill and body mass

index in 117 children between 5 to 10 years old There was

a significant difference in motor skills ability between

normal-weight and overweight children when compared with the

obese peers The finding showed that general motor skill level

was lower in obese children than in normal-weight and

overweight children A side of this Mozzini et al (1985)

pointed out that the principle cause of being obesity was the

inadequate physical fitness levels among children They

discovered that most of the obese children were being

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

28

physically inactive For this reason the 5-week motor

skills-related program provided opportunities for the

participants to get involve in exercising Last but not least

study of Logan et al (2008) observed 35 children aged 4 to

6 years about their motor proficiency and body composition

too Result indicated a significantly higher BMI percentile

scored lower in both two subtests and total raw score of TGMD-2

The above studies successfully showed a strong relationship

between motor skill performance and body percent fat

Summary

In conclusion nowadays people are getting higher concern

about young childrenrsquos motor development With no doubt this

is an essential foundation of childrenrsquos growth In order to

acquire the motor skills ability of children accurately the

second edition of Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2)

was the best implement There were totally two subtests among

TGMD-2 which were locomotor subtest and object control

subtest Locomotor skill required fluid coordinated movements

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

29

of body of children as they moved in one or another direction

while object control skills were demonstrated by effective

throwing catching and striking movements Six gross motor

skills included in each component

Besides researches found out that motor skills ability

was highly related to body fatness as obese children commonly

have lower level of motor skills than the normal-weight

children Previous studies also pointed out that the increased

BMI percentile was negatively affected the motor performance

Apart from this researches also showed that physically

inactive was the major course of obesity among children

Therefore for childrenrsquos future growth and development it

is important for them to increase their health-related fitness

level and motor skills performance Under this situation a

motor skills-related program provided exercise opportunities

for physically inactive children participants could even

speed up their motor development

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

30

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) method

of analysis

Sample of Selection

In the study 20 patients from the Kwong Wah Hospital were

invited to be the study subjects 12 boys and 8 girls aged

between 7-14 years old were selected and stratified sampling

was used during the selection for a total N =20

Measuring Instruments

In order to assess the motor skills level of the subjects

the test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2

Ulrich 2000) would be a suitable and efficient tool It is

a major revision of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD

Ulrich 1985) and it is a norm and criterion-referenced

measure of motor function for children in 3 through 10 years

old TGMD-2 is composed of two categories locomotor subtest

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

31

(run gallop hop leap horizontal jump slide) and object

control subtest (striking a stationary ball stationary

dribble catch kick overhead throw underhand roll) Both

the locomotor subtest and object control subtest include 6

skills test in a total of 24 performance criteria respectively

For verifying the gross motor skills of an individual Test

of Gross Development Quotient (GMDQ) would be used It is

assessed by summing up the total raw scores of two sub-sets

Testing Procedure

The pre-assessment test and post-assessment test were

taken at the Dr Stephen Hui sports hall and the 5-weeks motor

skills-related program was taken in both the Wai Hang sports

centre and Dr Stephen Hui sports hall Two trained examiners

were involved in the pre- and post-assessment tests and the

5-weeks motor skills-related program One of the examiners

demonstrated the skills to the subjects while the other

examiner observed and marked the scores for subjectrsquos

performance Besides the tests of motor movement the Body

Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

32

too Below are the run down of 12 motor skills tests

Locomotor Subtest-Run

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 50 feet

of running distance and 8 feet of safe stopping There is a

starting line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and

a finishing line with red in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The

examiner would give the instruction with shouting ldquoGordquo and

the participant was told to run at his or her fastest speed

The four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 (ie not flat footed) and nonsupport leg bent

approximately 90 degrees (ie close to buttocks) After two

times of trial participant was asked to do another test

Locomotor Subtest-Gallop

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of space was needed

in the test There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject would gallop from the white line

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

33

to the red line after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four

performance criteria for gallop were listed as follows arms

bent and lifted to waist level at 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Hop

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 15 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with yellow in color

and the word ldquoFinishrdquo When the examiner signified subject

with a ldquoGordquo he or she would hop by his or her preferred

foot from white line to yellow line and then hop by his or

her other foot from yellow line to white line The five

performance criteria for hop are listed as follow nonsupport

leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force foot

of nonsupport leg remains behind body arms flexed and swing

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

34

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 After two times of

trail subject was told to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Leap

According to Ulrich (2000) 20 feet of distance were

required for the test There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo A beanbag would be placed

between with the white line and blue line Participant ran

from the white line and leaped over the beanbag The four

performance criteria were listed as follow take off on one

foot and land on the opposite foot a period where both feet

are off the ground longer than running forward reach with

the arm opposite the lead foot The three performance criteria

were listed as follow take off on one foot and land on the

opposite foot a period where both feet are off the ground

longer than running forward reach with the arm opposite the

lead foot After two times of trails subject was asked to

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

35

have another test

Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump

According to Ulrich (2000) this test should have 10 feet

of distance There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with green in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject jumped as fast as he or she can

after the examiner said ldquoGordquo The four performance criteria

were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail

participant was asked to do the next test

Locomotor Subtest-Slide

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have 25 feet

of space There is a starting line with white in color and

the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with black in color and

the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject was asked to stand parallel to the

starting line He or she slid to the left from white line to

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

36

black line and then slid to the right side from black line

to white line The four performance criteria were listed as

follow 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 After two times of trail participant was asked to do

another test

Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball

According to Ulrich (2000) the test should have a plastic

bat a 4-inch lightweight ball and a batting tee as measuring

instruments The batting tee was arranged at subjectrsquos waist

level Subject was asked to hold the bat with both hands and

hit the ball as hard as he or she can The five performance

criteria were listed as follow 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

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

37

contacts ball After two times of trail participant was asked

to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble

According to Ulrich (2000) the test needed an 8 to 10-inch

playground ball Subject was asked to dribble the ball five

times with one hand and without moving his or her feet The

four performance criteria were listed as follow 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 After two times of trail participant

was asked to do the next test

Object Control Subtest-Catch

According to Ulrich (2000) 15 feet of distance and 8 to

10-inch playground ball were needed in this test The examiner

and the subject stood 15 feet away from each other the former

throw the ball underhand directly to the subject about his

or her chest level and the subject caught the ball with both

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

38

hands The three performance criteria for catch were listed

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

According to Ulrich (2000) 30 feet of distance an 8 to

10-inch playground ball and a bean bag was needed at the test

There is a starting line with white in color and the

word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with pink in color and the

word ldquoFinishrdquo A bean bag was placed 10 feet away from the

starting line and the ball was placed on the top of it Subject

ran from the white line and kicked the ball as hard as he or

she can The four performance criteria for kick were listed

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 After two times of trails subject was required to

do another test

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

39

Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw

According to Ulrich (2000) this test needed 20 feet of

space and a tennis ball There is a starting line with white

in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing line with blue

in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo Subject needed to throw the

ball from the starting line as far as he or she can The four

performance criteria were listed as follow windup is

initiated with downward movement of handarm 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

After two times of trails participant was told to do the next

test

Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll

According to Ulrich (2000) 25 feet of distance a tennis

ball and a beanbag was needed is this test There is a starting

line with white in color and the word rdquoStartrdquo and a finishing

line with blue in color and the word ldquoFinishrdquo The beanbag

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

40

was placed 20 feet away from the starting line subject stood

at the starting line and rolled the tennis ball underhand

directly to the beanbag The five performance criteria for

underhand roll were listed 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

Apart from this for the content of the 5-week

motor-related program it was scheduled from 27th Dec 2008

to 28th Jan 2009 with intervention session scheduled on every

Wednesdays and Saturdays Participants participated in the

scheduled motor skill-related activities Detailed

description of the program schedule was presented day by day

in the following paragraph Before the activities

participants were led to do the warm up and cool down session

each time Basically they included a set of stretching

motions and jogging

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

41

The first day of the program was held on 27th Dec 2008

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours First

of all there was a warm up session which took around thrity

minutes and then followed by the throwing and catching

practice session Participants were grouped in pairs and threw

and caught the ball with each other by using a tennwas ball

After that they were told to practice throwing and catching

in a circle This session spent about one hour and soon the

next session began It was a long-dwastance running practice

session Participants were divided into two groups by gender

they needed to run around a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon

Jai Park two times with a total dwastance of 3000 m Each

group was guided by two experiencedd instructors After one

hour practice of the long-running session participants were

asked to take a half hour of cool down session

Similarly the second day of the program was held on 31st

Dec 2008 in the Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration

was two hours After the fifthteen minutes warm up session

participants were told to have a basketball practice session

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

42

During the basketball session participants learnt the skills

of dribbling passing and shooting the ball They were

divided into four groups and each group was taught by an

experienced instructor The basketball practice session took

around an hour and then participants were asked to take

fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Three days later the third day of the program was held

on 3rd Jan 2009 in Tennwas Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and

the duration was three hours After some stretching the

training started with a warm up game it was a mini game This

session was around thirty minutes After this participants

were asked to have a mini-match It was a motor-skill related

mini-match with six locomotor skills In this session

participants were divided into four groups they were told

to fulfill some tasks and these tasks required the six

locomotor skills motion The fastest group which could fulfill

all the tasks correctly would be the winner This session spent

about one hour and soon the next session began It was a

mini-bowling session In this session participants would

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

43

learn about how to roll a plastic bowling ball during the

practice they could improve their motor performance of

underhand roll Finally after sixty minutes practice of the

mini-bowling session participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The forth day of the program was held on 7th Jan 2009 in

Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was two hours After

the fifthteen minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge

ball practice session In this session participants learnt

the skill of passing and hitting by a soften volleyball Then

they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

The dodge ball practice session spent about forty-five minutes

and soon the next session began It was a basketball practice

session Participants were told to demonstrate the skills of

dribbling passing and shooting a ball Lastly they were

divided into four groups and had a three on three basketball

match This session spent about one hour and after this

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

44

The fifth day of the program was held on 10th Jan 2009

in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport Centre and the duration was

three hours The warm up session was around thirty minutes

After that participants were told to have the motor-skill

related mini-match again During the mini-match they could

practice the locomotor skills though competition This

session spent about one hour and soon the next session began

It was a treasure hunt session In this session participants

were asked to divide into four groups They had to find out

the treasure though the tips given by the instructor The group

which could found out all the treasure in the shortest time

would be the winner In order to win in game participants

had to run fast during the hunting Lastly after sixty minutes

of the treasure hunt participants were asked to take a half

hour of cool down session

The sixth day of the program was held on 14th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sports Centre and the duration was two hours

After the fifthteen minutes of warm up session it was followed

with the dodge ball practice session Participants worked in

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

45

pairs and practiced for the skill of passing and hitting After

that they were asked to divide into two groups and had a match

This session spent about forty-five minutes and soon the next

session began It was a football practice session

Participants were divided into two groups by gender and they

learnt the skill of passing during the practice Each group

was guided by two experienced instructors After one

forty-five minutes practice of the football session

participants were asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down

session

The seventh day of the program was held on 17th Jan 2009

in Stephen Hui Sport Centre and the duration was three hours

The warm up session was around thirty minutes Then

participants were told to have a volleyball practice session

Participants were asked to divide into four groups each group

was leaded by an experienced instructors During this session

participants learnt the skill of passing using both the upper

hand and lower hand form After one hour practice of this

session they had a match It took about an hour Finally

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

46

participants were asked to take a half hour of cool down

session

After four days the eighth day of the program was held

on 21st Jan 2009 in Indoor-Basketball Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes of warm up session participants were asked to

practice tag rugby During the practice participants learnt

the skill of passing the ball and how to pull away peoplersquos

tag After the forty-five minutes practice participants were

told to divide into two groups and had a mini-rugby match

The match spent about one hour and soon the fifthteen minutes

cool down session began

The ninth day of the program was held on 24th Jan 2009

in Kowloon Jai Park and the duration was three hours After

the half hour warm up session participants were asked to have

a football practice session During the session they

demonstrated the skill of passing and shooting They were

divided into two groups by gender Each group was guided by

an experienced instructor Half hour later they had a five

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

47

on five football match It lasted for about thirty minutes

After the match they were told to practice softball It was

a plastic ball with plastic racket In this session they

learnt the skill of hitting the ball with the racket accurately

After the half hour softball practice the last session began

It was a long-running practice session Participants were

divided into two groups by gender they were asked to run around

a ldquo8rdquo shape running track at Kowloon Jai Park two times it

took around 3000 m Each group was guided by two experienced

instructors After one hour practice of the long-running

session participants were asked to take a half hour of cool

down session

Finally it came to the last day of the program The tenth

day was held on 28th Jan 2009 in Tennis Court of Wai Hang Sport

Centre and the duration was two hours After the fifthteen

minutes warm up and then followed by the dodge ball match

In this session participants can improve their motor

performance of overhand throw during playing dodge ball The

dodge ball match spent about forty-five minutes and soon the

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

48

next session began It was the motor-skill related mini-match

This mini-match was the most effective way for participants

to practice their locomotor skills in one activity This

session spent about one hour and after this participants were

asked to take fifthteen minutes of cool down session

Collection of Data

For the collection of data first of all the 12

performances of gross motor skills (run gallop hop leap

horizontal jump slide striking a stationary ball

stationary dribble catch kick overhand throw and underhand

roll) were evaluated by TGMD-2 Also the Body Mass Index was

calculated by subjectsrsquo height and weight too

Method of Analysis

In this study the collected data were entered to the

ldquoStatistic Package of Social Science 130 for windowsrdquo (SPSS

130) software Means (M) standard deviations (SD) and

minimum and maximum values of the variables of each testing

items were calculated Besides the difference in two scores

of TGMD-2 of subjectsrsquo motor skills performances before and

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

49

after the 5-weeks motor skills-related program was tested

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

50

Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of this study was to find out the difference

of the subject motor skill performance before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program Furthermore it aimed to

investigate whether there would be a higher improvement in

locomotor skill or object control This chapter was divided

into two main sections the results and discussion

Results

First of all the descriptive statistics with the means

standard deviations minimum and maximum values on the

background information of the participants would be displayed

Secondly the testing results of the TGMD-2 before and after

the program were presented afterwards The percentage of

participants who mastered a certain motor skills at the 25th-

50th- 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve

motor skills were also demonstrated too To find out the

difference before and after the program an analysis of Paired

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

51

Samples T-Test was used between both the raw scores of the

two motor subtests and the twelve motor skills within these

before and after the program of the subjects

Descriptive Statistics

In this study there were totally 20 participants (N = 20)

while 13 of them were male (n = 13) and 7 of them were female

(n = 7)

Firstly Table 1a displayed the descriptive results of age

of all subjects (N=20) on the other hand Table 1b and Table

1c were displaying the results by gender as I mentioned before

there were 13 male (n=13) and 7 female subjects (n=7) The

age of all participants ranged from 8 to 14 years old with

a mean age of 103 + years Respectively the mean ages of

male subjects were 103 + years while the mean ages of female

subjects were 1029 + years

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

52

Table 1a

Descriptive Results of Age of all the Participants (N = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Table 1b

Descriptive Results of Age of Male Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Table 1c

Descriptive Results of Age of Female Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Secondly Table 2a Table 2b and Table 2c showed the results

age exercise habits by gender receptivity It pointed out

that the female subjects had a higher frequency in exercise

participation (M= 2 + 116) than the males (M= 162 + 145)

Averagely the male subjects participated less than two times

in exercise per week while the female participants

participated only twice a week These would affect whether

subjects were actively participated in the 5-week

motor-related program or not

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

53

Table 2a

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the All

Participants (n = 20)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 20 103 13 8 14

Exercise habits 20 175 133 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2b

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 13 103 149 8 14

Exercise habits 13 162 145 1 6

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

Table 2c

Descriptive Results of Age Exercise Habit of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

n M SD Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 7 1029 095 9 12

Exercise habits 7 2 116 1 4

Note Self-reported on how many times exercise per week

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

54

Testing Results of the body measurements

The descriptive statistics of body measurements of all

participants (N = 20) were concluded in Table 3 Moreover

Table 4a and Table 4b also summarized the results of body

measurements of male participants and female participants

respectively

Basically The stature (m) and the body weight (kg) of the

female participants (M = 151 + 01 M = 6296 + 1388) were

gently higher than the male participants (M = 154 + 006

M = 6509 + 1248) However the male participants (M = 275

+ 391) achieved a higher value of the results of Body Mass

Index (BMI) than the female participants (M = 2726 + 437)

Table 3

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants

(N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 20 151 01 13 175

Body Weight (kg) 20 6296 1388 36 966

Body Mass Index 20 275 391 3355 2068

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

55

Table 4a

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male

Participants (n = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (cm) 12 149 011 131 175

Body Weight (kg) 12 618 1493 36 966

Body Mass Index 12 276 382 2114 3316

Table 4b

Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female

Participants (n = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

Stature (m) 12 154 006 147 162

Body Weight (kg) 12 6509 1248 448 803

Body Mass Index 12 2726 437 2068 3355

Testing Result of the TGMD-2

In Table 5a and Table 5b the raw score means and standard

deviations by gender of both two subtests before and after

the 5-week motor-related program were displayed Generally

speaking either the performance before or after the 5-week

motor-related program female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) slightly scored higher in the locomotor subtest

than the male subjects (M= 2862 + 3523 M= 3523 + 506)

On the other hand the male participants (M= 2692 + 48 M=

3523 + 5) scored higher than the females (M= 22 + 306 M=

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

56

30 + 327) in the object control component

To compare Table 6a exhibited the degree of improvement

of the total raw score the raw score of locomotor subtests

and the raw score of the object control subtests after the

5-week motor-related program while Table 6b and Table 6 also

showed the results by gender receptively too Overall the

improvement in object control subtest (M= 81 + 352) was

obviously higher than in locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306)

On the other hand when comparing by gender both the

improvement of the locomotor subtest object control subtest

and the TGMD-2 raw scores of male participants (M= 692 + 333

M= 815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) were gently greater than the female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

57

Table 5a

The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for the

Two Subtests before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 2862 665 2692 48 13 2943 411 22 306

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 5b

The Raw Scores Means and Standard Deviations by Gender for

the Two Subtests after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N

= 20)

Male Female

LOCO OB LOCO OB

n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

13 3523 506 3523 5 7 357 407 30 327

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6a

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw Scores of all

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 20 67 306 2 12

OB 20 81 352 4 18

TGMD 20 156 545 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

58

Table 6b

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Male

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 13)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 13 692 333 2 12

OB 13 815 42 4 18

TGMD 13 16 616 8 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

Table 6c

The improvement of Subtests and Total Raw scores of Female

participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (N = 7)

N M SD Minimum Maximum

LOCO 7 629 269 2 10

OB 7 8 2 4 10

TGMD 7 1486 414 10 22

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

The percentiles represent values that indicated the

percentage of the distribution that was equal to or below a

particular raw score (Ulrich 2000) Therefore the 25th-

50th- and 75th-percentiles score for both male and female

subjects were equivalently showed in all the twelve motor

skills in Table 7a and Table 7b Basically average means that

a value fell between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles while the

one fell above 75th-percentile was considered as above average

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

59

and the one fell below 25th-percentile was claimed as below

average

Table 7a and Table 7b summarized the percentiles of the

raw score of the subtests and TGMD-2 for male and female

participants separately

Table 7a

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 46

50th 58

TGMD

75th 65

25th 22

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 22

50th 28

OB

75th 31

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

60

Table 7b

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Percentiles Female

Participants

n 7

25th 46

50th 50

TGMD

75th 58

25th 26

50th 30

LOCO

75th 34

25th 20

50th 22

OB

75th 26

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

61

Table 7c

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Male Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 13)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 13

25th 61

50th 68

TGMD

75th 78

25th 30

50th 36

LOCO

75th 36

25th 31

50th 32

OB

75th 40

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

62

Table 7d

Percentiles of the Raw score of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for

Female Participants after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 17)

Percentiles Male

Participants

n 7

25th 60

50th 66

TGMD

75th 72

25th 32

50th 36

LOCO

75th 38

25th 28

50th 30

OB

75th 32

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

According to Ulrich 2000 in the TGMD-2 the total raw

score for locomotor and object control skills both ranged from

0 to 48 points Each motor skill included 3 to 5 performance

criteria which described the mature pattern of the skill

Getting full mark in the particular skill represented the

acquisition of the mature form that skill Table 8a Table

8b Table 8c and Table 8d manifested the percentage of

participants who mastered a certain gross motor skills before

and after the 5-week motor-related program and also by gender

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

63

separately

Table 8a

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n

= 13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 321

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

77

Catch 308

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

64

Table 8b

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills before the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 0

Gallop 0

Hop 0

Leap 0

Horizontal jump 0

Slide 429

Striking a

stationary ball

0

Stationary

dribble

0

Catch 286

Kick 0

Overhand throw 0

Underhand roll 0

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

65

Table 8c

Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the

12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program (n =

13)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 13

Run 23

Gallop 154

Hop 00

Leap 154

Horizontal jump 154

Slide 538

Striking a

stationary ball

77

Stationary

dribble

231

Catch 615

Kick 00

Overhand throw 00

Underhand roll 00

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

66

Table 8d

Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on

the 12 Motor Skills after the 5-week Motor-Related Program

(n = 7)

Motor skill items Percentage

n 7

Run 286

Gallop 143

Hop 00

Leap 286

Horizontal jump 143

Slide 714

Striking a

stationary ball

00

Stationary

dribble

00

Catch 286

Kick 143

Overhand throw 143

Underhand roll 00

An Analysis of Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

Table 9a and Table 9b expressed the difference of motor

ability of all participants before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program Table 9a was presented by two subtests

and total raw scores and Table 9b was specifically presented

by each skills of TGMD-2 Paired sample T-Test was used while

assessing the difference before and after the 5-week motor

skills-related program A significant difference was found

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

67

in both the locomotor subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object

control subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) and the total raw score

(t = -1408 p lt 005) These results represented that after

the 5-week motor skills-related program the 20 participants

had a significant improvement on their motor ability

Table 9a

Paired Sample T-Test of Subtests and Total Raw scores of all

participants before and after the 5-week Motor-Related

Program (N = 20)

N t p

LOCO 20 -1031 000

OB 20 -1031 000

TGMD 20 -1407 000

Note LOCO = Locomotor subtest Maximum = 48

OB = Object control subtest Maximum = 48

TGMD = TGMD-2 total score Maximum = 96

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

68

Table 9b

Paired Sample T-Test of Total Raw Scores of Each Skill from

TGMD-2 of all participants before and after the 5-week

Motor-Related Program (N = 20)

N t p

Run 20 -6084 000

Gallop 20 -594 000

Hop 20 -192 007

Leap 20 -394 000

Horizontal jump 20 -277 001

Slide 20 -267 002

Striking a

stationary ball

20 -468 000

Stationary

dribble

20 -400 000

Catch 20 -285 001

Kick 20 -394 000

Overhand throw 20 -407 000

Underhand roll 20 -581 000

Difference is significant at the 001 level (2-tailed)

Discussions

The discussion chapter was divided into two sections (a)

testing result of the TGMD-2 (b) effect of the 5-week

motor-related program

Testing Results of the TGMD-2

In present study female participants (M= 2943 + 411

M= 357 + 407) preformed better in the locomotor subtest when

comparing with the performance of male participants (M= 2862

+ 3523 M= 3523 + 506) on the other hand male participants

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

69

(M= 2692 + 48 M= 3523 + 5) showed that they had a better

ability of object control skill than female participants (M=

22 + 306 M= 30 + 327) When comparing the difference of

motor skills after the program by gender male participants

(M= 81 + 352) revealed that they hade a higher improvement

on both the locomotor and object control subtests than female

participants (M= 67 + 306) Is there any difference between

genders in motor ability of children In the pervious studies

there is no absolutely answer for the above question

Roncesvalles et al (2007) had conducted a study of the

fundamental motor skills of a group of children indentified

as being overweight obese and aimed to find out whether the

gender difference in motor ability of children was significant

Likewise in the study of Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) they

found that boys performed better than girls in motor skills

test at preschool age Also resulting in study of Colella

et al (2009) has also discovered better motor performance

among boys when comparing with girlsrsquo motor performance

However result from Heather (2002) indicated that boyrsquos

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

70

scores of TGMD-2 were not significantly different from the

girlrsquos score of TGMD-2

In 2006 Wong and Cheung (2006) conducted a study in order

to provide normative information regarding gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children A total of 1228

children aged from 3 to 10 years old were involved in this

study When comparing with participants in present study at

same ages the motor performance of participants in present

study were was worse than participants in Wong and Cheungrsquos

study

There are several reasons which made the difference between

the present study and the study of Wong and Cheung (2006)

First of all the sample size was one of the reasons In the

study of Wong and Cheung (2006) there were 193 participants

who aged from 8 to 10 years old when comparing with the 14

participants in the present study a bigger sample size might

contribute to a more valid result

Secondly being over fat or obese can be a reason which

leads to a poor result of motor ability In 2007 Roncesvalles

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

71

Isidro Meaney and Hart conducted a study of 34 children

identified as being overweight or obese they wanted to find

out whether the participants could exhibit motor skill

performance at age-expected levels The results presented

that the motor ability of the participants were poor The study

also concluded that the increased BMI was moderately

correlated with substandard motor performance Therefore it

is no doubt that the motor skill ability of the participants

was worse than the participants from study of Wong and Cheung

(2006)

Besides the exercise habit among the participants is a

reason which affects their performance of motor skills

According to Table 2a and Table 2b participants from present

study did not showed a frequent habit in exercising Averagely

the 20 participants participated in exercise less than twice

a week Being passive in participating exercise was corrected

to motor ability and it could result in bad motor performance

Lastly the environment where the test took place was a

reasonable factor too Children might nervous to an unfamiliar

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

72

environment and this would typically influence their

performance

Apart from this Wong and Cheung (2006) also indicated that

the object control skills of Hong Kong children were poorer

than USA children They compared their results to the

corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 and

discovered that the locomotor skills performance of

participants in their study was similar to those reported by

Ulrich (2000) of different ages and gender However the

object control skills performance of participants was worse

than those participated in TGMD-2 The conclusion reflected

that Hong Kong Educators should focus more on teaching the

object control skills when designing a physical program

Another result about locomotor skills and object control

skills was found too Study of Lee and Zhu (2005) investigated

that the object control category was more difficult than

locomotor category In the present study either male or

female participants they both performed better in the

locomotor skills than in object control skills By mean

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

73

before the 5-week motor skills-related program male

participants scored 2862 in the raw score of locomotor

subtest while they 2692 in the raw score of object control

subtest Likewise the female participants scored 2943 in

the raw score of the locomotor subtest while they just scored

22 in the object control subtest Similarly after the 5-week

motor skills-related program female participants scored 357

in the locomotor subtest while they scored only 30 in the object

control subtest The only exception was the mean raw score

of male participants they scored 2862 in both the locomotor

subtest and the object control subtest The result pointed

out that participants had a better ability when performing

the locomotor skills than the object control skills in other

words the object control skills were more difficult than the

locomotor skills

Effect of the 5-week Motor-Related Program

During the analysis of the difference before and after the

5-week motor skills-related program Paired Sample T-Test was

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

74

used as an analyzing tool Results specified that there was

a significant difference before and after the 5-week motor

skill-related program Generally speaking both the locomotor

subtest (t = -1031 p lt 005) the object control subtest

(t = -1031 p lt 005) and total raw score could acquire a

significant difference

Aside from this the improvement of all participants could

showed another finding Although the previous findings and

the present study have claimed that object control skills were

more difficult than the locomotor skills when comparing the

raw scores of two subtests the improvement in object control

subtest (M= 81 + 352) was apparently higher than in locomotor

subtest (M= 67 + 306) The contribution of the program design

was the only answer of the greater improvement in object

control subtest As the program schedule mentioned in chapter

three the activities were mainly focused on the object

control skills For instance it had four times of training

of Overhand throwing two times training of stationary

dribbling catching kicking underhand roll and one time

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

75

training of striking a stationary ball out of the ten days

program This was because the study of Lee and Zhu (2005) has

proved that the object control skills were more difficult than

the locomotor skills Furthermore their results also

indicated that Overhand throwing was the most difficult

subtest therefore the 5-week motor skills-related program

mostly focused on the training of Overhand throwing Finally

the design of program contributed to the outstanding

improvement of object control subtest among all participants

For the evaluation of the program first of all frankly

speaking the duration of the program was too short As 5 weeks

was only a very short period of time it could not contribute

a lot on the further motor development of the children Besides

the contribution of the program design was not the only reason

which led to the improvement of the motor ability among the

participants As the children were still at a growing up stage

their motor ability would be developed naturally by aged Wong

Cheung (2006) verified that the mastery level of gross motor

skills tended to follow an age trend in their study In other

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

76

words even there was not any motor skill-related program for

the participants their motor ability would be improved by

growing up too

One of the advantages of the 5-week motor skill-related

program was that the program was specifically designed for

the motor skills training Aforementioned the program was

principally focused on the object control component most of

the training sessions were around the sports which involved

the object control skills As the over fat or obese

participants were classified as having poor motor ability

the tight squeeze of training and object control-orientated

program were successfully led to a great improvement among

the motor ability of participants especially on the object

control subtest

Moreover it was a fun approaching program therefore it

was more suitable for children than the regular training

program During the training instructors used special

technique to attract participants mini match was one of the

good examples of fun approaching An interesting program might

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

77

enhance participantsrsquo active level when participating in the

program for this reason fun approach has brought the program

to a great success In the study of Goodway et al (2003)

they stated that positive feedback provided by instructors

was useful for participants to perform better motor

performance During the 5-week motor skills-related program

the experienced instructors gave briefly and easy

instructions with positive feedback to the participants This

was believed to be one of reason which caused the success of

program

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

78

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Summary of Results

The study was designed to examine the difference of motor

skill before and after a 5-week motor-skill related program

Furthermore the different degrees of improvement of raw score

of the locomotoe subtest and object control subtest were also

accessed

A total of 13 males and 7 females from Kwong Wah Hospital

were participated in this study During the study the test

of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2 Ulrich

2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance

Moreover participants were asked about their exercise habits

their results of stature body weight and Body Mass Index were

collected too Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 150 version

computer program Paired Sample T-Test was used with the alpha

level being set at 005

The results of this study were summarized as follows

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

79

1 There was a significant difference before and after the

5-week motor skill-related program among the locomotor

subtest object control subtest and the total raw score from

TGMD-2

2 The improvement in raw score of object control subtest (M=

81 + 352) among participants was greater than improvement

in raw scores of locomotor subtest (M= 67 + 306) among all

participants

3 The improvement of male participants (M= 692 + 333 M=

815 + 42 M= 16 + 616) was greater than improvement of female

participants (M= 629 + 269 M= 8 + 2 M= 1486 + 414) among

the locomotor subtest object control subtest and the total

raw scores of TGMD-2

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

80

Conclusions

Overall the study concluded that the performance of motor

ability among the 20 participants before the 5-week motor

skill-related program was significantly different from their

performance after the program this meant that the program

had a positive effect on the improvement of the motor skills

among the participants Furthermore the improvement of

locomotor subtest was greater than the object control subtest

which was mainly because of the tight squeeze of training and

the object control-orientated program design

Recommendations for Further Study

Further recommendations for this study are as follows

1 The sample size should be expanded in order to obtain more

representatives

2 The duration should be longer in order to increase the

observation time of motor development

3 The gender difference should be test specifically in order

to get a more valid testing result

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

81

4 To prevent the learning effect appears among participants

each participant should perform the motor skills

separately

5 To enrich the study findings the study should include the

social and psychological effect from the program

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

82

References

Adolph K E Tamis-lamonda C S amp Ishak S (2008)

Locomotor experience and use of social information are

posture specific Development Psychology 44 (6)

1705-1714

Anshel M H (1986) Aging and Motor Behavior United States

of America Benchmark Press Inc

Beckung E Carlsson G Carsdotter S amp Uvebrant P (2007)

The nature history of gross motor development in children

with cerebral oalsy aged 1 to 15 years Development

Medicine and Child Neurology 49 (10) 751-756

Bouchard C Shephard R J amp Stephens T (1994) Physical

activity fitness and health international proceedings

and consensus statement Claude Bouchard Roy J Shephard

Thomas Stephens editors Champaign Human Kinetics

Publishers

Colella D Morano M Robazza C amp Bortoli L (2008) Body

Image perceived physical ability and motor performance

in nonoverweight and overweight in Italian children

Perceptual and Motor Skills 108 (1) 209

Fliers E Vermeulen S Rijsdijk F amp Altink M et al

(2009) ADHD and Poor Motor Performance From a Family

Genetic Perspective Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48 (1) 25

Ebbeling CB Pawlak DB amp Ludwig D S (2002)

Childhood obesity Public-health crisis common sense

cure Lancet 360 473-482

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

83

Foley J T Harvey S amp Chun H J (2008) The relationships

among fundamental motor skills health-related physical

fitness and body fitness in South Korean Adolescents with

mental retardation Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport 79 (2) 149-157

Goodway J D Branta C F amp (2003) Influence of a motor

skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development

of disadvantaged preschool children Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport 74 (1) 36-46

Graf C Koch B Dordel S Schindler-Marlow S Icks

A Schuller A et al (2004) Physical activity leisure

habits and obesity in first-grade children European

Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention amp Rehabitation 11

284-290

Graf C Koch B Kretschmann K E Falkowski G Christ

H amp Coburger S (2004) Correlation between BMI leisure

habits and motor abilities in childhood International

Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorder 28 (1)

22-27

Heather S N (2002) The effect of an object control motor

skill intervention on the motor development of preschool

and kindergarten children who are attending an urban

elementary school Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Kovacs C R (2008) Measuring motor skill learning-a

practical application ProQuest Education Journals 22

(2) 25-29

Lee M Zhu W amp (2005) Many-facted rasch calibration of

TGMD-2 Research Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 76 (1)

116

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

84

Logan S W (2008) The relationship between motor

proficiency and body composition in children aged 4--6

years Delaware (United States) University of Delaware

Maskell B Shapiro D R amp Ridley C (2004) Effect of brain

gym on overhand throwing in first grade studies A

Preliminary Investigation ProQuest Education Journals

61 (1) 14

Mozzini L Pastolesi B amp Pangrazi B (1985)

ChildrenYouth Physical Fitness Program Management System

United States of America American Alliance for Health

Physical Education Recreation and Dance

Naki A H (2006) The effect of two instructional approaches

on the object control skills of children considered

disadvantaged Ohio (United States) The Ohio State

University

Okely AD Booth ML amp Chey T (2004) Relationships

between body composition and fundamental movement skills

among children and adolescents Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 75 38-247

Payne V G amp Isaacs L D (2005) Human motor development

A lifespan approach(6th ed) Boston IL McGraw-Hill

Roncesvalles M N Isidro M amp Meaney K S (2007) Motor

skill development of children at risk of obesity Research

Quarterlt for Exercise and Sport 78 (1) 46

Wong K Y (2006) Construct validity of the test of gross

motor development HKBU Library WebOPAC (TH PHD 2006WC)

Wong K Y Cheung S Y amp (2006) Gross motor skills

performance of Hong Kong Chinese children Journal of

Physical Education amp Recreation (hong Kong) 12 (2) 23-29

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

85

Siengsukon C F Boyd L A amp (2009) Does sleep promote

motor learning implications for physical rehabilitation

Physical Therapy 89 (4) 370-383

Sjoumlstrom L V (1992) Morbidity of severely obese subjects

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 508S-515S

Toriola A L amp 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

Examinerrsquos Manual (2nd ed) Austin TX Pro-ed

Wang J H T (2004) A study on gross motor skills of

preschool children Journal of Research in Childhood

Education 19(1) 32-43

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

86

APPENDIX A

Record Sheets of the TGMD-2

Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________

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 Score

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 (ie not flat footed)

1 Run

4 Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (ie 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

3 Brief period when both feet are off the floor

2 Gallop

4 Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops

Skill score

1 Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force

3 Hop

2 Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

87

3 Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force

4 Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot

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

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

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

88

Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)

Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial

1 Trial

2 Score

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

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

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

89

Skill score

1 Windup is initiated with downward movement of handarm

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

2 Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the cones

3 Bends knees to lower body

6 Underhand Roll

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) Signature of examiner _______________

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

90

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire of the Study

1 一星期內你的兒童會與家長 (最少一位) 享用晚餐多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩至三次

C 四至五次

D 六至七次

2 一星期內你的兒童會食快餐食物多少次

A 一次或以下

B 兩次

C 三次

D 四次

E 五次或以上

3 一日內你的兒童會飲用多少含有糖份的飲料 (如汽水果汁檸檬茶

等)(一份 = 360 毫升12 安士) (注意超過半份即約一份)

A 一份或以下

B 兩份

C 三份

D 四份

E 五份或以上

4 一星期內你的兒童會有多少日參與最少 30 分鐘的運動 (球類踏單車

步行等)

A 零至一日

B 兩至三日

C 四至五日

D 六至七日

請註明運動類別_____________________________________________

5 一日內你的兒童會有多少次使用電子媒體的時間 (包括看電視玩電子

遊戲機聽音樂使用電腦-非為功課用途)

A 一小時以下

B 一至兩小時

C 兩至三小時

D 三至四小時

E 四小時或以上

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)

91

APPENDIX C

Consent Form to Participants

體能活動適應能力問卷與你

(一份適用於 15 至 69 歲人士的問卷) 經常進行體能活動不但有益身心而且樂趣無窮因此愈來愈多人開始多做運

動對大部分人來說多做運動是很安全的不過有些人則應在增加運動量前

先行徵詢醫生的意見

如果你計劃增加運動量請先回答下列 7 條問題如果你介乎 15 至 69 歲之間這份體能活動適

應能力問卷會告訴你應否在開始前諮詢醫生如果你超過 69 歲及沒有經常運動請徵詢醫生的

意見

普通常識是回答這些問題的最佳指引請仔細閱讀下列問題然後誠實回答

請答「是」或「否」

是 否

1 醫生曾否說過你的心臟有問題以及只可進行醫生建議的體能活動

2 你進行體能活動時會否感到胸口痛

3 過去一個月內你曾否在沒有進行體能活動時也感到胸口痛

4 你曾否因感到暈眩而失去平衡或曾否失去知覺

5 你的骨骼或關節(例如脊骨膝蓋或髖關節)是否有毛病且會因改變體能活動而惡化

6 醫生現時是否有開血壓或心臟藥物(例如 water pills)給你服用

7 是否有其他理由令你不應進行體能活動

適當使用體能活動適應能力問卷

The Canadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyHealth Canada 及其代理人毋須為進行體能活動的人承擔責任如

填妥問卷後有疑問請先徵詢醫生的意見然後才進行體能活動

本人已閱悉明白並填妥本問卷本人的問題亦已得到圓滿解答

姓名 ______________________________ 身份證明文件號碼 ___________________________

簽署 ______________________________ 日期 ________________________________________

家長或監護人簽署 _________________ 見證人_______________________________________

(適用於 18 歲以下的參加者)