Die fisieke en motoriese ontwikkeling van voorskoolse kinders vanuit verskillende sosio-ekonomiese omstandighede: thusano-studie

Abstract

Literature indicates a negative impact of socio-economic circumstances on gross and fine motor development of children. The aim of this study was to analyse the possible differences between physical and motor development of pre-school children within poor and higher socio-economic status (SES). A group of 67 children between four months and 71 months were identified according to a random stratified sample of 50 families from a poor socio-economic background and were evaluated using measurements of height, weight and skinfolds (triceps, subscapular and calf). The Peabody Developmental Motor Scales -2 (PDMS-2) was used to determine motor developmental status. The same procedure was followed with a group of 34 preschool children (age = 48-73 months) from higher socio-economic status. Covariance of analysis, adjusted for age, showed that children from higher SES performed predominantly better regarding some motor skills compared to the children from poor SES. Statistical and practical significant differences (p ≤ 0.05, Eta 2 > 0.01) that were found indicated poorer development in the poor SES group regarding their locomotor, visual motor and fine motor standard scores, percentiles and gradings, and regarding their gross motor quotient, although the results indicated that the gross motor development of children living in higher SES also needs attention. The balance and object control of the low SES group were however better (p<0.05, Eta 2 > 0.01) compared to the high SES group. These results substantiate that the motor development of children living in poor socio-economic conditions are hampered by their environment, and that they should receive additional attention to prevent deficiencies in this regard.

Suitability of the ‘Little DCDQ' for the identification of DCD in a selected group of 3–5-year-old South African children

“…The question has to be asked whether parents in such circumstances will be capable of doing a reliable analysis of their children's motor development. South African studies also report a high percentage of motor problems among children living in this country (Pienaar & Kemp, 2014;Uys & Pienaar, 2010) that necessitate preventative strategies which make screening measurement tools essential. This study aimed to establish the suitability of the 'Little DCDQ' for the identification of DCD among three-to five-year-old South African children by comparing it to the MABC-2 which is regarded as the golden standard in identifying DCD.…”

Okul Öncesi̇ Dönem Çocuklarinin Görsel Motor Beceri̇leri̇ni̇n İncelenmesi̇

“…Tablo 9'da çalışma grubundaki çocukların görsel motor becerilerinin, çocukların ailelerinin sosyo-ekonomik durumlarına göre çizim ve eşleme alt boyutlarında orta sosyo-ekonomik ailelerden gelen çocuklar lehine anlamlı farklılık gösterirken, çivi tahtası alt boyutunda anlamlı farklılık göstermediği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Çocukların görsel motor becerileri ile sosyo-ekonomik düzeyin arasındaki ilişkinin olası açıklaması, yüksek sosyo-ekonomik düzeydeki öğrencilerin genellikle daha fazla kaynağa sahip olmalarıdır ki bu durum düşük sosyo-ekonomik düzeydeki öğrencilere kıyasla daha iyi performans göstermelerini sağlamaktadır (Uys & Pienaar, 2010). Görsel motor koordinasyon, algı ve motor becerilerle ilgilidir.…”

The ability of teachers to identify Grade 1 learners in low socio-economic environments with possible developmental coordination disorder

“…In South Africa, many children living in low socio-economic environments experience low motor skill abilities (Pienaar & Kemp 2014) because of limited opportunities to practice fundamental motor skills (Ferguson, Naidoo & Smits-Engelsman 2015;Gallahue & Ozmun 2006) and may therefore be identified with possible DCD (Hardy et al 2012;Uys & Pienaar 2010;Valentini et al 2015). Furthermore, the children living in low socio-economic environments are not adequately motivated to develop fundamental motor skills and in many cases, insufficient instructions and limited physical education opportunities for the development of these skills are provided (Barnett et al 2016;Gallahue & Ozmun 2006;Pienaar & Kemp 2014).…”