Task-Specific and Latent Relationships Between Motor Skills and Executive Functions in Preschool Children

Abstract

There has been an increasing interest in the relationship between motor skills and executive functions (EFs) in young children over the years. However, no clear picture on the relationship between both domains has emerged from these studies. We have extended previous findings by conducting a comprehensive examination of taskspecific and latent relationships between a range of motor skills and EFs in preschool children. The sample consisted of 198 3-to 5-year-old children (102 boys; 51.5%). Motor skills were assessed using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children Second Edition. EFs were assessed with the performance-based tasks 'Day/Night,' 'Hand Tapping,' 'Forward Corsi Block,' 'Forward Digit Recall,' and 'Conflict Task,' and a rating-based EF measure (i.e., the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning-Preschool version). Task-specific relationships were examined using zeroorder Pearson correlations. Latent factors of motor skills and EFs were examined using confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine latent relationships. The results of the Pearson correlation analyses showed statistically significant albeit weak correlations between specific motor and EF items (r = 0.15 to r = 0.23). SEM showed non-significant weak relationships between a general motor factor (as a unitary latent construct) on the one hand, and performance-based EFs and rating-based EFs (as latent EF components) on the other hand. In conclusion, this study suggested only weak relationships between motor skills and EFs in preschool children with no clear differences between their task-specific and latent relationships.

Assessing Motor Performance in Preschool Children: The Zurich Neuromotor Assessment-2 and the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2

“…The modest relationships we found between the ZNA-2 and MABC-2 may also be partially due to the internal structure of one or both of these motor tests. Although we were not able to examine the internal structure of the tests due to our small sample size, both a three-factor structure (Psotta & Brom, 2016) and a one-factor structure of the MABC-2 (Okuda et al., 2019; Schulz et al., 2011; van der Veer et al., 2020) seem viable in preschool children. Furthermore, the factor structure of the original ZNA has been supported by Rousson and Gasser (2004).…”

Teacher-Rated Executive Functions, Gender and Relative Age: Independent and Interactive Effects on Observed Fundamental Motor Skills in Kindergarteners

“…( Leonard and Hill, 2015 ; Ruddock et al, 2016 ; Houwen et al, 2017 ). In this regard, several studies suggest that motor competence could vary even between tasks considered similar since the relationships between EF and motor skills in preschool children are task-specific ( Roebers and Kauer, 2009 ; Michel et al, 2011 ; Stöckel and Hughes, 2016 ; Van Der Veer et al, 2020 ). This helps to explain some of the most striking results found in our study, in that not all tasks related to locomotion nor all those related to dynamic balance were affected by EF level.…”

“…Addressing the entire main types of FMS in the same study and assessing each one of them in two motor tasks, and not only in one like most existing research, are two highlights of our study. This has allowed overcoming the limitations of other published studies and responding to the demands of the literature ( Van Der Veer et al, 2020 ; Veraksa et al, 2021 ). In addition, in our analyses we have considered 13 FMS scores as dependent variables.…”

“…This implies a more time intensive cost, but in return, systematic observation allows obtaining more and in-depth information, and its objectivity is also greater. Thus, given that both EF observing measures and EF rating measures clearly have their pros and cons ( Van Der Veer et al, 2020 ), their complementary use constitutes an ideal option. Furthermore, this complementarity would be especially interesting insofar as some researchers have suggested that measures assessing EF across informants or by systematic observation tap into different aspects of EF ( Toplak et al, 2013 ; Miranda et al, 2015 ; Ten Eycke and Dewey, 2016 ; O’Meagher et al, 2019 ; Tamm and Peugh, 2019 ; Van Der Veer et al, 2020 ).…”

“…Inclusion/exclusion criteria were the following, in agreement with other similar studies such as Van Der Veer et al (2020). As inclusion criteria were applied: (1) having completed the entire second cycle of Early Childhood Education and Care in this same center (or what is the same, being a student of this school since the age of 3); (2) normal or corrected to normal hearing and vision; and (3) adequate IQ according to their chronological age.…”