|
The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity The main purposes of this research were to determine the reliability and validity items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor items testing gross motor skills in the second edition of Peabody Developmental Motor Scales (PDMSScales (PDMSScales (PDMSScales (PDMSScales (PDMSScales (PDMS-2), to determine t2), to determine t2), to determine t2), to determine the developmental norm of gross motor skills amongst he developmental norm of gross motor skills amongst he developmental norm of gross motor skills amongst he developmental norm of gross motor skills amongst he developmental norm of gross motor skills amongst he developmental norm of gross motor skills amongst he developmental norm of gross motor skills amongst he developmental norm of gross motor skills amongst he developmental norm of gross motor skills amongst he developmental norm of gross motor skills amongst he developmental norm of gross motor skills amongst he developmental norm of gross motor skills amongst he developmental norm of gross motor skills amongst children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation children between the ages of four and six in Taoyuan area, to determine relation between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive between the participants’ background variables and their gross motor skills. Purposive sampling was used to recsampling was used to recsampling was used to recsampling was used to recsampling was used to recsampling was used to recsampling was used to recsampling was used to recruit a total of 265 participants at public and private kindergarten, ruit a total of 265 participants at public and private kindergarten, ruit a total of 265 participants at public and private kindergarten, ruit a total of 265 participants at public and private kindergarten, ruit a total of 265 participants at public and private kindergarten, ruit a total of 265 participants at public and private kindergarten, ruit a total of 265 participants at public and private kindergarten, ruit a total of 265 participants at public and private kindergarten, ruit a total of 265 participants at public and private kindergarten, ruit a total of 265 participants at public and private kindergarten, ruit a total of 265 participants at public and private kindergarten, ruit a total of 265 participants at public and private kindergarten, ruit a total of 265 participants at public and private kindergarten, ruit a total of 265 participants at public and private kindergarten, ruit a total of 265 participants at public and private kindergarten, ruit a total of 265 participants at public and private kindergarten, 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool 138 boys and 127 girls. The reliability of the internal consistency research tool was .882, the testwas .882, the testwas .882, the testwas .882, the test-retest reliability was .978, and the interretest reliability was .978, and the interretest reliability was .978, and the interretest reliability was .978, and the interretest reliability was .978, and the interretest reliability was .978, and the interretest reliability was .978, and the interretest reliability was .978, and the interretest reliability was .978, and the interretest reliability was .978, and the interretest reliability was .978, and the interretest reliability was .978, and the interretest reliability was .978, and the interretest reliability was .978, and the interretest reliability was .978, and the interretest reliability was .978, and the interretest reliability was .978, and the inter-rater reliability was .960. The rater reliability was .960. The rater reliability was .960. The rater reliability was .960. The rater reliability was .960. The rater reliability was .960. The rater reliability was .960. The rater reliability was .960. The rater reliability was .960. The rater reliability was .960. The rater reliability was .960. The rater reliability was .960. The rater reliability was .960. The rater reliability was .960. The rater reliability was .960. The totatotal explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, l explained cumulative variance of the exploratory factor analysis was 71.472%, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, factor loading for stability skills was .854, the locomotor .844, and the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scaleand the factor loading for object control skills was .838, showing scale used in this used in this used in this used in this study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.study has a good degree of reliability and validity.
With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48With a percentile rank of 50, for the participants aged between 48-50 months, the raw 50 months, the raw 50 months, the raw 50 months, the raw 50 months, the raw 50 months, the raw scores for gross motor skills were 263scores for gross motor skills were 263scores for gross motor skills were 263scores for gross motor skills were 263scores for gross motor skills were 263scores for gross motor skills were 263scores for gross motor skills were 263scores for gross motor skills were 263scores for gross motor skills were 263scores for gross motor skills were 263scores for gross motor skills were 263scores for gross motor skills were 263scores for gross motor skills were 263-275; for the participants aged 51275; for the participants aged 51275; for the participants aged 51275; for the participants aged 51275; for the participants aged 51275; for the participants aged 51275; for the participants aged 51275; for the participants aged 51-53 months it was 53 months it was 53 months it was 53 months it was 53 months it was 271-283; for the participants aged 54the participants aged 54the participants aged 54the participants aged 54-59 months it was 27759 months it was 27759 months it was 27759 months it was 277-283; for the participants aged 283; for the participants aged 283; for the participants aged 283; for the participants aged 283; for the participants aged 283; for the participants aged 283; for the participants aged 283; for the participants aged 60-65 months it was 28065 months it was 28065 months it was 28065 months it was 280-285; and for the participants aged 66285; and for the participants aged 66285; and for the participants aged 66285; and for the participants aged 66285; and for the participants aged 66285; and for the participants aged 66285; and for the participants aged 66285; and for the participants aged 66-72 months it was 28272 months it was 28272 months it was 28272 months it was 282-286. With a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants sWith a percentile rank of 50, in stability skills and locomotor skills, the participants scored cored cored cored better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about better than their counterparts in the United States, and object control skills were about the same.the same.
In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66In stability skills and object control skills, the participants aged 66-72 months performed 72 months performed 72 months performed 72 months performed 72 months performedbetter than the participants aged 54better than the participants aged 54better than the participants aged 54better than the participants aged 54better than the participants aged 54better than the participants aged 54better than the participants aged 54better than the participants aged 54better than the participants aged 54better than the participants aged 54better than the participants aged 54-59 months, 5159 months, 51-53 months and 4853 months and 4853 months and 48-50 months. In the 50 months. In the 50 months. In the 50 months. In the development of gross motor skills, the participants aged 60development of gross motor skills, the participants aged 60development of gross motor skills, the participants aged 60development of gross motor skills, the participants aged 60development of gross motor skills, the participants aged 60development of gross motor skills, the participants aged 60development of gross motor skills, the participants aged 60development of gross motor skills, the participants aged 60development of gross motor skills, the participants aged 60development of gross motor skills, the participants aged 60development of gross motor skills, the participants aged 60development of gross motor skills, the participants aged 60development of gross motor skills, the participants aged 60development of gross motor skills, the participants aged 60-65 months performed better 65 months performed better 65 months performed better 65 months performed better 65 months performed better 65 months performed better 65 months performed better 65 months performed better 65 months performed better than the participants aged 54than the participants aged 54than the participants aged 54than the participants aged 54than the participants aged 54than the participants aged 54-59 months, 5159 months, 51-53 months and 4853 months and 4853 months and 48-50 months. In stability 50 months. In stability 50 months. In stability 50 months. In stability 50 months. In stability 50 months. In stability 50 months. In stability 50 months. In stability skills and object control skills, the participantskills and object control skills, the participantskills and object control skills, the participantskills and object control skills, the participantskills and object control skills, the participantskills and object control skills, the participantskills and object control skills, the participantskills and object control skills, the participantskills and object control skills, the participants aged 60s aged 60-65 months performed better than 65 months performed better than 65 months performed better than 65 months performed better than 65 months performed better than 65 months performed better than 65 months performed better than 65 months performed better than 65 months performed better than 65 months performed better than the participants aged 51the participants aged 51the participants aged 51the participants aged 51the participants aged 51-53 months and the participants aged 4853 months and the participants aged 4853 months and the participants aged 4853 months and the participants aged 4853 months and the participants aged 4853 months and the participants aged 4853 months and the participants aged 48-50 months. As for gender, 50 months. As for gender, 50 months. As for gender, 50 months. As for gender, 50 months. As for gender, 50 months. As for gender, 50 months. As for gender, 50 months. As for gender, 50 months. As for gender, 50 months. As for gender, in object control skills, the boys aged 48in object control skills, the boys aged 48in object control skills, the boys aged 48in object control skills, the boys aged 48in object control skills, the boys aged 48in object control skills, the boys aged 48in object control skills, the boys aged 48in object control skills, the boys aged 48in object control skills, the boys aged 48in object control skills, the boys aged 48in object control skills, the boys aged 48in object control skills, the boys aged 48in object control skills, the boys aged 48in object control skills, the boys aged 48in object control skills, the boys aged 48-53 months performed better than the girls in 53 months performed better than the girls in 53 months performed better than the girls in 53 months performed better than the girls in 53 months performed better than the girls in 53 months performed better than the girls in 53 months performed better than the girls in 53 months performed better than the girls in 53 months performed better than the girls in 53 months performed better than the girls in 53 months performed better than the girls in 53 months performed better than the girls in 53 months performed better than the girls in 53 months performed better than the girls in same age group. As for BMI, in ssame age group. As for BMI, in ssame age group. As for BMI, in ssame age group. As for BMI, in ssame age group. As for BMI, in ssame age group. As for BMI, in ssame age group. As for BMI, in ssame age group. As for BMI, in ssame age group. As for BMI, in ssame age group. As for BMI, in ssame age group. As for BMI, in ssame age group. As for BMI, in ssame age group. As for BMI, in ssame age group. As for BMI, in stability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged tability skills, the participants with a normal BMI aged 51-53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but 53 months performed better than the overweight participants in same age group, but no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.no other significant differences relating to BMI were found.
Finally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suFinally, based on the results, I present some suggestions for future research and ggestions for future research and ggestions for future research and ggestions for future research and ggestions for future research and ggestions for future research and ggestions for future research and ggestions for future research and ggestions for future research and ggestions for future research and ggestions for future research and ggestions for future research and ggestions for future research and ggestions for future research and ggestions for future research and teachers working with this age group.teachers working with this age group.teachers working with this age group.teachers working with this age group.teachers working with this age group.teachers working with this age group.teachers working with this age group.teachers working with this agroup.teacheworking with this age group.teachers working with this age group.teachers working with this age group.teachers |
|
參考文獻 中文部分 水心蓓（2005）。動作教育概念詮釋與定義。國立臺北教育大學學報，18（2）， 379-400。 王天苗、廖華芳（2007）。嬰幼兒綜合發展測驗之判定準確度及切截點分析。特殊教育研究學刊，32（2），1-15。王孝玲（2005）。教育測量（修訂版，第2版）。上海：華東師範大學出版社。 王佩玲（2013）。幼兒發展評量與輔導。新北市：心理。 王宗騰（2013）。從幼兒園新課綱提擬身體動作與健康領域實施策略。大專體育，126，15-22。王常義（2004）。TGMD-2「移動性動作分測驗」常模之建立－一個桃園縣忠貞國小四年級常模。未出版之碩士論文，國立台北師範大學，台北市。 王雪貞等（譯）（2002）。發展心理學（原作者：Shaffer, D. R.）。台北市：學富。 王惠姿（2013）（譯）。0-8歲嬰幼兒肢體動作發展經驗與教學（原作者：Pica, R.）。台北：華騰文化。 朱志華、陳重佑（2004）。兒童投擲發展之動態系統觀。國立臺灣體育學院體育學系所刊，4，81-95。 余雅婷、周宏室（2014）。從自律神經觀點探討幼兒動作發展。成大體育學刊，46（1），34-48。吳紋綺、吳宜華、張雪鳳、黃芝葦、洪禎雯（2006）。侷限誘發療法對半側偏癱腦性麻痺兒童的運用：病例報告。台灣復健醫誌，34（2），111-118。 吳淑芳（2006）。國外量表之兩階段翻譯及信、效度測試。護理雜誌，53（1），65-71。吳雪玉、廖華芳、姚開屏、李旺祚、王天苗、謝正宜（2005）。「嬰幼兒綜合發展測驗」動作分測驗與「皮巴迪動作發展量表第二版」於學前兒童動作發展的診斷準確度。台灣醫學，9（3），312-322。吳雪櫻、陳怡君、湯子瑩、凃富籌（2012）。學齡前發展遲緩兒童之臨床評估與診斷-以新竹縣某區域醫院為基礎之病例探討。身心障礙研究，10（2），88-98。 吳進欽、姜忠信（2011）。自閉症類幼童發展能力表現型態之研究。應用心理研究，51，15-40。呂龍驤、黃美瑤（2016）。從動態系統理論觀點探討幼兒動作發展。幼兒教保研究期刊，16，113-130。李卓、席宇誠、黃真（2008）。PDMS-2 運動發育量表與Gesell兒童發育量表一致性研究。中國康復醫學雜誌，23（12），1071-1073。 李明、黃真（2006）。Peabody運動發育量表。北京：北京大學醫學出版社。 李秋霞（2005）。幼兒發展評估之研究。幼兒保育研究期刊，1（1），99-122。 李靜（2009）。山東省3-10歲兒童動作發展研究。山東體育學院學報，25（4），47-50。 李靜、馬紅霞（2007）。兒童動作發展測試（TGMD-2）信度和效度的研究。體育學刊，14（3），37-40。 李靜、梁國力（2005）。大肌肉群發展測試（TGMD-2）研究。中國體育科技，41（2），105-107。 李曜全、許筑涵、陳威穎、林小蕙、宋岱芬、吳昇光。（2012）。兒童動作評量測驗與第二版粗動作發展測驗之評分者內與評分者間信度。身體活動與運動科學學刊，1（1），43-55。汪宜霈、鈕文英（2005）。腦性麻痺兒童適應體育教學模式之發展。特殊教育與復健學報，13，149-178。汪家琦（2015）。發展學齡前兒童動作發展評估量表。未出版之碩士論文，長庚大學，桃園市。 卓重亨（2006）。兒童動作發展歷程特徵及其課程設計要點。課程與教學，23（2），43-48。 幸曼玲等（2015）。幼兒園教保活動課程手冊（上冊）。台中市：教育部國民及學前教育署。 林曼蕙（2001）。臺灣兒童的體能狀況。兒童保健雜誌，27，115-123。 林淑儀（2016）。語言治療師與職能治療師運用合作教學提升發展遲緩兒童語言及精細動作能力之個案研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺北教育大學，台北市。 邱文信、陳五洲（2003）。從動作發展理論探究體育教學。國立體育學院論叢，14 (1)，16-21。邱章樂（2004）。思維命題與測量。北京：中國文史出版社。 孫世恆、朱怡菁、林千惠、吳昇光（2013）。學前兒童粗大動作品質量表。取自：http://www.psy.com.tw/ec99/ushop20128/GoodsDescr.asp?category_id=124&parent_id=118&prod_id=88230 孫曉玲（2010）。學前粗大動作品質量表與粗動作發展測驗-第二版同時效度之研究。未出版之碩士論文，中國醫藥大學，台中市。 徐永玟、成戎珠、游子瑩、施陳美津（2004）。台灣與美國學齡前兒童於兒童動作測驗組表現之比較。物理治療，29（5），307-316。 桃園市民政局（2016年9月13日）。民政局。取自：http://cab.tycg.gov.tw/ 桃園市政府（2016年9月13日）。主計處。取自：http://dbas.tycg.gov.tw/ 張芝綺、詹元碩、何金山（2012）。知覺動作訓練對於特殊需求兒童身心發展之效益。彰化師大體育學報，11，108。張春興（2011）。張氏心理學辭典。臺北市：東華。 教育部（2016年12月15日）。幼兒教育及照顧法。取自：http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=H0070031 教育部（2017年1月15日）。幼兒園教保活動課程大綱。取自：file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/20161201%E5%B9%BC%E5%85%92%E5%9C%92%E6%95%99%E4%BF%9D%E6%B4%BB%E5%8B%95%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E5%A4%A7%E7%B6%B1(%E5%90%AB%E8%A1%8C%E6%94%BF%E5%91%BD%E4%BB%A4).pdf 許秀萍、張玲芬、丘嘉慧、梁珀華、蘇慧菁（2015）（譯）。兒童發展（原作者：Robert, S. F.）。新北市：心理。 許雅怡（2005）。兒童動作評量測驗工具與第二版粗動作發展測驗之信度研究。未出版之碩士論文，台灣體院學院，台中市。 許瑞峰、王忠義、蘇嘉祥、呂岱（1992）。動作教育。國教月刊，38（3），32-48。 許義雄（譯）（2004）。兒童發展與身體教育（原作者：David L. G.）。台北市：復文書局。 郭生玉（1991）。心理與教育測驗。台北市：精華書局。 郭生玉（2001）。心理與教育研究法。台北市：精華書局。 郭靜晃、張瓊云、魏弘貞、謝孟岑、黃麗錦（譯）（2008）。兒童發展（原作者：Joan, L. C., & Greg, C.）。台北市：華都文化。 陳忠仁（1994）。動作教育的課程展開。動作教育的教學應用，1，7-14。 陳讚誠（2004）。TGMD-2「操作性動作分測驗」常模之建立：一個彰化縣草湖國小常模。未出版之碩士論文，國立台北師範大學，台北市。 傅秀媚、孫世恆、羅鴻基、楊國德、劉秀芬、蔡靜怡、楊玲芳、關佩偉、莊瓊惠、莊竣博（2006）。早期療育。台中：華格納出版社。 甯科、邵曉軍、米青（2016）。2016大肌肉動作發展量表(TGMD-2)在學前兒童中的驗證性因素分析。陝西學前師範學院學報，32（1），65-68。 黃志成、王淑芬、陳玉玟（2008）。幼兒發展。新北市：揚智文化。 黃思航（2004）。大肌肉動作發展測驗之信效度再檢驗。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺北師範學院，臺北市。 楊淑朱（2009）（譯）。動作教學（原作者：Weikart, P. S.）。新北市：心理。 楊淑朱、林淑蓉、蔡佳燕（2014）。不同性別、年齡及BMI之幼童在基本動作發展的比較。大專體育學刊，16（3），287-296。楊淑朱、黃娟娟、林淑蓉（2011）。幼托園所選用出版社教材之研究。大同幼保研究集刊，3，23-55。 經佩芝、杜淑美（2002）。嬰幼兒發展與保育。台北：龍騰。 董奇、陶沙（2006）。動作與心理發展。臺北市：五南。 廖彥妮（2005）。國小學童大肌肉動作發展之比較研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立台北師範大學，台北市。 廖華芳（2006）。小兒物理治療學：Pediatric Physical therapy-health promotion, habilitation and rehabilitation. 台北市：禾楓。 趙盈瑄（2015）。 早產兒和足月兒的體能活動量、動作技巧表現及家庭環境。未出版之碩士論文，國立台灣大學，台北市。 劉雅茹（2011）。學前粗大動作品質量表運用於發展遲緩兒童之信效度。未出版之碩士論文，國立台中教育大學，台中市。 劉鶴珣（2007）。身體活動對發展遲緩兒童基本動作技巧表現之影響。未出版之碩士論文，國立陽明大學，台北市。 潘介玉（2014），發展遲緩兒童動作技巧與感覺處理能力之關係探討。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺北護理健康大學，台北市。 潘泰陶（2002）。7-12歲兒童動作協調能力性別差異的研究。中國體育科技，38（11），15-17。 蔡志鵬（2004）。不同性別國小學童大肌肉動作發展與學業成就之相關與差異。未出版之碩士論文，國立台北師範大學，台北市。 蔡佩婷、彭揩茵、鄭宜苓（2010）。新手父母一把罩：動作發展-幼兒動作發展與輔導。（未出版之原始資料）。 衛生福利部社會及家庭署（2016）。發展遲緩兒童早期療育服務個案通報概況。取自：www.mohw.gov.tw/test/DOS/DisplayStatisticFile.aspx?d=31844&s=1衛生福利部國民健康署（2016年8月21日）。兒童與青少年生長身體質量指數（BMI）建議值。取自：http://obesity.hpa.gov.tw/TC/BMIproposal.aspx 謝伃鑫（2009）。 合作式團隊模式之家庭訪視介入對動作遲緩嬰幼兒之療效。未出版之碩士論文， 國立臺北大學，台北市。 謝協君（2010）。親子玩具活動對腦性麻痺幼兒動作發展的影響。特殊教育研究學刊，35（2），81-101。韓德生（2011）。肌抑素之調控及其與肌肉萎縮之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣大學，台北市。 顏世慧（2004）。第四章-神經系統。載於王淑惠（主編），幼兒生理學。臺中市：華格那。 蘇建文、林美珍、程小危、林惠雅、幸曼玲、陳李綢、吳敏而、柯華葳、陳淑美（1998）。發展心理學（修訂版）。新北市：心理。 饒曼平（2014）。整體動作評估的信度和同時效度。未出版之碩士論文，成功大學，台南市。 權朝魯（2003）。效果量的意義及測定方法。心理學探新，23（2），39-44。 龔如菲、陳姣伶、李德芬、游淑芬（2001）。嬰幼兒發展與輔導。臺北縣：啟英文化。 英文部分 Balakrishnan, T., & Rao, C. S. (2010). Interrater reliability of bilateral coordination of Bruininks Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP) & performance of Indian children compared with USA norms. Indian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 38(3), 55-59. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bardid, F., Huyben, F., Lenoir, M., Seghers, J., De Martelaer, K., Goodway, J. D., & Deconinck, F. J. (2016). Assessing fundamental motor skills in Belgian children aged 3-8 years highlights differences to US reference sample. ACTA PAEDIATRICA, 105(6), 281-290. Best, J. R. (2010). Effects of physical activity on children’s executive function: Contributions of experimental research on aerobic exercise. Developmental Review, 30, 331-351. Bhat, A. N., Landa, R. J., & Galloway, J. C. (2011). Current perspectives on motor functioning in infants, children, and adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Physical Therapy, 91, 1116-1129. Boreham, C., & Riddoch, C. (2001). The physical activity fitness and health of children. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19(3), 915-929. Bruininks, R. H. (1978). Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency examiner’s manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Bruner, J.S. (1962). The conditions of creativity. In: Gruber, H., Terrell, G., Wertheimer, M. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking, (pp. 1–30). New York (NY): Atherton. Burton, A.W., & Miller, D.E. (1998). Movement skill assessment. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Capio, C. M., Sit, C. H. P., Eguia, K. F., & Abernethy, B. (2014). Physical activity and movement skills proficiency of young Filipino children. Pediatrics International, 56, 651-653. Chow, B. C., Louie, L. H. T. (2013). Difference in children’s gross motor skills between two types of preschools. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 116, 253-261. Cliff, D. P., Okely, A. D., Smith, L. M., & McKeen, K. (2009). Relationships between fundamental movement skills and objectively measured physical avtivity in preschool children. Pediatric Exercise Science, 21, 436-449. Cohen, E., Boettcher, K., Maker, T., Phillips, A., Terrel, L., Nixon-Cave, K., & Shepard, K. (1999). Evaluation of the Peabody Developmental Gross Motor Scales for young children of African American and Hispanic ethnic backgrounds. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 11(4), 191-204. Connolly, B. H., Dalton, L., Smith, J. B., Lamberth, N. G., McCay, B., & Murphy, W. (2006). Concurrent Validity of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II (BSID-II) Motor Scale and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale II (PDMS-2) in 12-Month-Old Infants. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 18(3), 190-196. Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Business research methods (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. D’Hondt, E., Deforche, B., Bourdeaudhuij, I. D., & Lenoir, M. (2009). Relationship between motor skill and body mass index in 5-to 10-Year-old children. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 26, 21-37. Dennis, W. (1960). Causes of retardation among institutional children. Iranian Journal of Genetic Psychology, 96, 47-59. Dietz, J., Kartin, D., & Kopp, K. (2007). Review of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition (BOT-2). Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 27(4), 87–102. Dwyer, G. M., Baur, L. A., & Hardy, L. L. (2009). The challenge of understanding and assessing physical activity in preschool-age children: Thinking beyond the framework of intensity, duration and frequency of activity. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 12, 534-536. Evaggelinou, C., Tsigilis, N., & Papa, A. (2002). Construct validity of the Test of Gross Motor Development: A cross-validation approach. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19, 483–495. Fagot, B. I., & Leinbach, M. D. (1989). The young child’'s gender schema: environmental input, internal organization. Child Development, 60, 663-672. Folio, M. K., & Fewell, R. (2000). Peabody developmental motor Scales: Examiner’s manual (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed Gallahue, D. L. (1996). Developmental physical educational for today’s children (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Gallahue, D. L., & Ozmun, J. C. (1998). Understanding motor development: Infants, children, adolescents, adults (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Gallahue, D.L., & Ozmum, J. C. (2002). Understanding motor development: Infants, children, adolescents, adults (5th ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill. Giagazoglou, P., Kabitsis, N., Kokaridas, D., Zaragas, C., Katartzi, E., & Kabitsis, C. (2011). The movement assessment battery in Greek preschoolers: the impact of age, gender, birth order, and physical activity on motor outcome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 2577-2582. Goodway, J. D., Crowe, H., & Ward, P. (2003). Effect of motor skill instruction on fundamental motor skill development. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20(3), 298-314. Hardy, L. L., King, L., Farrell, L., Macniven, R., & Howlett, S. (2009). Fundamental movement skills among Australiam preschool children. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 13(5), 503-508. Hasselstrom, H., Hansen, S., Froberg, K., & Andersen, L. (2002). Physical fitness and physical activity during adolescence as predictors of cardiovascular disease risk in young adulthood. Danish Youth and Sports Study. An eight-year follow-up study. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 23(2), 27-31. Haywood, K. M., & Getchell, N. (2001). Life span motor development (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Henderson, L., Sugden, D. A., & Barnett, A. L. (2007). Movement assessment battery for children-2. London: Harcourt Assessment. Henderson, S. E., & Sugden, D. A. (1992). Movement assessment battery for children. London: Psychological Corporation. Houwen, S., Hartman, E., & Visscher, C. (2009). Physical activity and motor skills of children with and without visual impairments. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 41, 103–109. Houwen, S., Hartman, E., Jonker, L., & Visscher, C. (2010). Reliability and validity of the TGMD-2 in primary-school-age children with visual impairments. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 27, 143-159. Houwen, S., Visscher, C., Lemmink, K. A. P. M., & Hartman, E. (2008). Motor skill performance of school-age children with visual impairments. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 50, 139-145. Hull, R. B., Ferry, M. D., Rinehart-Lee, T. D., Hundt, A. R., Brogan, K., & Shen, B. (2009). Relationships among body composition, fundamental movement skills, and physical activity level in African-American preschoolers. Journal of Sport & Exercise Phychology, 31(Suppl.), S33. Janz, K. F., Dawson, J. D., Mahoney, L. T. (2000). Predicting heart growth during puberty: The Muscatine study. Pediatrics, 105(5), E63. Joanne, H. D. (2002). Motor development in elementary children. Strategies a Journal for Physical and Sport Educators, 15(3), 30-34. Kim, M., Kim, S., Ryu, J., & Lee, S. (2007). The change of postural control abilities on the development of locomotion in children. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, S35-S35. LeGear, M., Greyling, L., Sloan, E., Bell, R. I., Williams, B. L., Naylor, P. J., & Temple, V. A. (2012). A window of opportunity? Motor skills and perceptions of competence of children in kindergarten. International Journal of Behavior Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10, 9-29. Lin, S. J., & Yang, S. C. (2015). The development of fundamental movement skills by children aged six to nine. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(12), 1024-1027. Logan, S. W., Scrabis-Fletcher, K., Modlesky, C., & Getchell, N. (2011). The relationship between otor skill proficiency and body mass index in preschool children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(3), 442-448. Mickle, K. J., Munro, B. J., & Steele, J. R. (2011). Gender and age affect balance performance in primary school-aged children. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 14(3), 243-248. Morano, M., Colella, D., & Caroli, M. (2011). Gross motor skill performance in a sample of overweight and non-overweight preschool children. International Journal of Pediatric Obesity, 6, 42-46. Nadia, C. V. (2012). Validity and reliability of the TGMD-2 for Brazilian children. Journal of Motor Behavior, 44(4), 275-80. Newmeyer A. J., Grether S., Grasha C. (2007). Fine motor function and oral-motor skills in preschool-age children with speech sound disorders. Clinical Pediatrics, 46, 604–611. Okely, A. D., Booth, M. L., & Chey, T. (2004). Relationships between body composition and fundamental movement skills among children and adolescents. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75(3), 238-247. Oliveira, J., Tani, G., & Santos, S. (2007). Development level variability of a basic motor skill as a systemic practice function. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, S41-S41. Palisano, R. J., Lydic, J. S. (1984). The Peabody Developmental Motor Scales: An analysis. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 4, 69-75. Pang, A. W., & Fong, D. T. (2009). Fundamental motor skill proficiency of Hong Kong children aged 6-9 years. Research in Sports Medicine, 17(3), 125-144. Parmar, S., & Kamat, N. (2011). The relationship between body mass index and gross motor development in children aged 3 to 5 Years. International Journal of Research in Health Sciences. 23(2), 144-148. Parmar, S., & Kamat, N. (2013). Assessment of Dharwad rural normal children on Peabody developmental motor scales, second edition (PDMS-2). International Journal of Research in Health Sciences, 1(3), 165-70 Payne, V. G., & Isaacs, L. D. (2005). Human motor development (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Payne, V. G., & Isaacs, L. D. (2008). Human motor development: A lifespan approach (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books. Provost, B., Crowe, T. K., & McClain, C. (2000). Concurrent validity of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II Motor Scale and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales in two-year-old children. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 20(1), 5-18. Provost, B., Heimerl, S., MeClain, C., Kim, N. H., Lopez, B. R., & Kodituwakku, P. (2004). Concurrent validity of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II Motor Scale and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 in children with developmental delays. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 16(3), 149-156. Provost, B., Lopez, B. R., & Heimerl, S. (2007). A comparison of motor delays in young children: Autism spectrum disorder, developmental delay, and developmental concerns. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(2), 321–328. Robinson, L. E. (2011). The relationship between perceived physical competence and fundamental motor skills in preschool children. Child Care, Health and Development, 37(4), 589-596. Saraiva, L., Rodrigues, L. P., Cordovil, R., & Barreiros, J. (2013). Motor profile of Portuguese preschool children on the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2: a cross-cultural study. Res Dev Disabil, 34 (6), 1966-1973. Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2005). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Siahkouhian, M., Mahmoodi, H., & Salehi, M. (2011). Relationship Between Fundamental Movement Skills and Body Mass Index in 7-To-8 Year-Old Children. World Applied Sciences Journal, 15 (9), 1354-1360. Simons, J., Daly, D., Theodorou, F., Caron, C., Simons, J., & Andoniadou, E. (2008). Validity and reliability of the TGMD-2 in 7–10-year-old flemish children with intellectual disability. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 25, 71-82. Singh, D., Negin, J., Otim, M., Orach, C. G., & Cumming, R. (2015). The effect of payment and incentives on motivation and focus of community health workers: five case studies from low- and middle-income countries. Human Resources for Health, 13, 13-58. Sun, S. H., Zhu, Y. C., Shih, C. L., Lin, C. H., & Wu, S. K. (2010). Development and initial validation of the preschooler gross motor quality scale. Research in Development Disabilities, 31, 1187-1196. Taras, H.L. (1992). Physical activity of young children in relation to physical and mental health. In C. M. Hendricks, (Ed.). Young children on the grow: Health activity, and education in the preschool setting (pp. 33-42). Washington, D. C.: Eric Clearinghouse. Thelen, E., Robyn, R. J. & Fisher, D. M. (1983). Shifting patterns of bilateral coodination and lateral dominance in the leg movements of young infants. Development Psychobiology, 16(0), 29-46. Tripathi, R., Joshua, A. M., Kotian, M. S., & Tedla, J. S. (2008). Normal motor development of Indian children on Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2). Pediatric Physical Therapy, 20(2), 167-72. Ulrich, D. A. (2000). Test of gross motor development (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Valentini, N. C. (2012). Validity and reliability of the TGMD-2 for Brazilian children. Journal of Motor Behavior, 44(4), 275-280. Vameghi, R., shams, A., Dehkordi, P. S. (2013). The effect of age, sex and obesity on fundamental motor skills among 4 to 6 years-old children. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 29(2), 586-589. Van, H., M. J., Cup, E. H., & Oostendorp, R. A. (2005). Reliability and validity of the fine motor scale of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2. Occupational Therapy International, 12(1), 1-13. Van, W. H., Peersman, W., Lenoir, M., & Smits-Engelsman, B. C. M. (2007). Convergent validity between two motor tests: Movement-ABC and PDMS-2. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24(1), 59-69. Vandaele, B., Cools, W., de Decker, S., & de Martelaer, K. (2011). Mastery of fundamental movementskills among 6-year-old Flemish pre-school children. European Physical Education Review, 17(1), 3-17. Wadsworth, M. (1979). Roots of delinquency: infancy. Adolescence and Crime. Oxford: Martin Robertson. Wang, H. H., Liao, H. F., & Hsieh, C. L. (2006). Reliability, sensitivity to change, and responsiveness of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-Second Edition for children with cerebral palsy. Physical Therapy, 86(10), 1351-1359. WHO (2016). World Health Organization. Retrieved October 13, 2016, from http://www.who.int/en/ Williams, J., Lee, K. J., & Anderson, P. J. (2010). Prevalence of motor-skill impairment in preterm children who do not develop cerebral palsy: A systematic review. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 52(3), 232–237. Wilson, B. N., Kaplan, B. J., Crawford, S. G., & Dewey, D. (2000). Inter-rater reliability of the Bruininks Oseretsky test of motor proficiency-long form. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17(1), 95-110.Zwicker, J. G., Harris, S. R., & Klassen, A. F. (2013). Quality of life domains affected in children with developmental coordination disorder: A systematic review. Child: Care, Health and Development, Special Issue: Participation of children with disabilities: Measuring subjective and objective outcomes, 39(4), 562–580. |
| |