What factors relate to three profiles of perception of motor competence in young children?

Abstract

The study aims were to 1) examine profiles of perception of motor competence (PMC) in relation to actual motor competence (AMC), i.e. under-estimators (UEs), realistic estimators (REs) and over-estimators (OEs) and 2) investigate associations between the profiles and selected socioecological factors at the individual, family and environmental levels. PMC (Pictorial Scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence) and AMC (Test of Gross Motor Development-Third Edition) were administered to a representative sample of children from 37 childcare centres in Finland (n=441;6.2±0.6yrs;52% boys). Socioecological factors were investigated using a parental questionnaire. The three profiles were formed based on age-and genderadjusted PMC and AMC z-scores. Multinomial logistic regression showed that OEs (n=81; p=0.04) tended to be younger than REs (n=306; p=0.04) and UEs (n=54; p=0.03). Parents of OEs reported more child health and developmental issues than parents of REs (p=0.03). Parents of UEs self-reported providing more support for physical activity than parents' of REs (p=0.04). REs tended to live in denser population areas than UEs (n=54; p=0.03). Whilst PMC profiles revealed some socioecological differences, future research needs to focus on a broader range of potential correlates and untangle methodological analyses challenges to deepen the knowledge about PMC development in children.

Perceived motor competence in early childhood predicts perceived and actual motor competence in middle childhood

“…In total, 37 ECEC centers participated: 17 located in Southern, 13 in Central, and seven in Northern Finland. 21,23 As PMC was assessed only with children aged 5 or more years, the data of the current study, includes only children over 5 years.…”

“…The intra-class correlation (ICC) estimate considering the total PMSC was 0.85 (95% CI = 0.76-0.91), indicating a good test-retest reliability. 21,23 At T2, a supervised group administration was used due to the older age of the children. This approach is recommended for use with children over 8 years.…”

“…20 One way of enlarging the understanding of the relationship between AMC and PMC with a person-centered approach has been the study of different profiles. 5,20,21 The PMC profiles in the past have been identified based on the accuracy of the estimation (realistic, over-, or underestimation) 20,21 or based on the alignment between PMC and AMC (e.g., aligned, aligned-partially, non-aligned). 5,8,12 In short, in these studies, the focus has been in the identification of the profiles, as well as explaining the associations of the profiles to other factors, such as motivation towards sport, 12 autonomous motivation towards PA, 6 PA, 5,6 sport participation, 20 and weight status.…”

“…Profiles also differed according to sport participation, with the overestimation profile of locomotor competence practicing a larger amount of sport than the underestimation profile. 20 Inspired by these past studies, 5,12,20,21 the authors of a longitudinal profile study identified profiles separately for boys and girls. 8 The authors reported that regardless of gender, high PMC and AMC and physical fitness were associated with higher PA participation and lower weight status 8 supporting the findings of previous cross-sectional studies, 5 and past frameworks.…”

“…8 The authors reported that regardless of gender, high PMC and AMC and physical fitness were associated with higher PA participation and lower weight status 8 supporting the findings of previous cross-sectional studies, 5 and past frameworks. 2,3 Previous cross-sectional studies have revealed different PMC-AMC profiles, 5,12,[20][21][22] some of which differ by gender. 20,22 However, cross-sectional studies cannot provide evidence regarding the development of PMC-AMC profiles across time.…”