Associations Between Fundamental Motor Skill Domains and Physical Fitness Components in 5-11-Year-Old Children

Abstract

High competence in fundamental motor skills (FMS) and adequate physical fitness (PF) levels are a solid foundation for acquiring an active and healthy lifestyle during childhood and adolescence. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to compare gender and age groups and identify correlations between FMS and PF in young elementary school students. We used a structured questionnaire to gather sociodemographic information from parents, and we characterized the children’s economic profile with the Brazil Social Economic Status Criterion. We collected FMS data using the Furtado-Gallagher Children Observational Movement Pattern Assessment System (FG-COMPASS), and we used the Brazil Sports Project Battery Test to measure PF levels. Statistical analyses involved descriptive data and inferential tests to determine group differences in FMS and PF levels. Hierarchical regression helped identify the associations between FMS and PF, as controlled by sociodemographic factors. Participants were 720 students (and parents) of both genders (383 girls, 337 boys; M age = 8.8, SD = 1.52 years) from grades 1 to 5 in an elementary school in a municipality in the western region of the Paraná state in Brazil. The results showed significant differences in children’s motor skills and PF based on gender and age. The hierarchical regression model showed different combinations of flexibility, abdominal resistance, upper limb strength, agility, speed, and lower limb strength, which explained 33.7% of the variability in the global FMS index, 41% of the variability in manipulative skills, and 12.7% of the variability in locomotor skills. In addition, there was a positive association between FMS and PF related to neuromuscular development for both sexes, regardless of age.

Keywords

motor dexterity motor skills physical fitness child motor development fundamental movement skill

Introduction

During early childhood, children master and enhance their voluntary movements, fostering fundamental motor skills (FMS) that enable them to engage in various motor activities and expressions (Gallahue et al., 2012). The development of FMS can bolster engagement in physical activity (PA) throughout childhood, adolescence, and even adulthood, making FMS foundational for specialized motor skills in sports, games, dance, and martial arts. Studies by De Meester et al. (2018) and Mazzardo et al. (2018) proposed that FMS development during childhood and adolescence can lead to increased later participation in PA.

Evidence from a systematic review revealed a strong link between FMS and PA from early childhood to adolescence (Logan et al., 2015), and extensive research has supported a link between participating in intervention programs focused on FMS at an early stage and increased frequency and intensity of PA at later ages (e.g., Engel et al., 2018). Lloyd et al. (2014) built upon these discoveries by presenting longitudinal data spanning two decades. These investigators proposed that acquiring FMS at age 6 predicts participation in PA during leisure time at age 26, and their findings clarified the long-term effects of early motor skill development on continuous PA and highlighted the wide-ranging advantages of early childhood interventions aimed to improve FMS. Magill and Anderson (2021) reported that when assessing FMS in children, it is advisable to focus on the process of FMS development, emphasizing the biomechanical and qualitative aspects of movements so as to reflect the internal information processing mechanisms that are integral to motor skill development.

In prepuberty, the intrinsic patterns of somatic growth and physiological maturation serve as the underpinning for developing physical-motor skills—cornerstones of childhood growth that evolve naturally with age. Gaya et al. (2021) noted that, during this stage, children’s burgeoning capabilities in cardiorespiratory endurance, flexibility, and muscular strength are vital for physical fitness (PF), directly affecting overall health and well-being. As articulated by García-Hermoso et al. (2019), insufficient development of these skills may precipitate various health complications, ranging from postural deviations to metabolic conditions like hypertension, dyslipidemia, and obesity.

Transitioning into puberty presents a unique set of challenges that can influence the trajectory of these emerging physical-motor skills. Freitas et al. (2016) contended that the normal fluctuations associated with pubertal growth can impact motor skills and PF. Specifically, they identified skeletal development and body size changes that transpire throughout puberty as factors that can temporarily disturb motor coordination. This disturbance is ascribed to the maturation of the neuromuscular system and any uneven growth rates of various body segments, offering insight into the intricate interplay between physical growth, motor skill development, and PF during this critical developmental phase.

Stodden et al. (2008) posited a conceptual framework, and they subsequently refined it (Stodden et al., 2014), postulating that the symbiotic relationship between FMS and PF components is pivotal in determining children’s PA levels. This interdependence of FMS and PF facilitates active behaviors, bolstering motor and PF indicators. De Meester et al. (2018) and Jaakkola et al. (2016), who supported the intricate connections between these constructs, have presented empirical evidence corroborating this model. Although not the central focus of the present investigation, it is noteworthy that the relationship between the development of FMS and PA over time is not exclusively contingent on PF but is also influenced by perceived motor skill competence (Stodden et al., 2008).

In fostering active behavior among children, it is vital to understand the mechanisms involved in enhancing proficient movement among different age groups. Both FMS and PF variables are key components of this synergistic system. Cardiorespiratory conditioning significantly promotes PA and improves motor skills in children at different stages of development (Cattuzzo et al., 2016; Luz et al., 2017; Stodden et al., 2013, 2014). However, considering the evidence that PA during childhood is intermittent, with a prevalence of moderate to vigorous intensity (Landry & Driscoll, 2012), it is likely that aerobic conditioning partially influences children’s physical performance. The Compendium of Physical Activities (Ainsworth et al., 2024) has offered a framework for quantifying the energy expenditure associated with common sports and physical activities in Brazil, such as soccer, volleyball, basketball, and futsal (i.e., 5-on-5 indoor soccer), which are popular among children and have varying metabolic equivalent (MET) intensities reflective of moderate to vigorous activity levels. Recently, positive associations have been demonstrated between aerobic conditioning and musculoskeletal fitness (Bremer & Cairney, 2018) and flexibility (Luz et al., 2017). However, further research is needed to confirm these findings by analyzing other factors affecting PF.

The relationships described in Stodden’s (2008) model have a dynamic quality that changes as individuals develop. This is because the interaction between individual factors, environmental factors, and motor tasks differs during childhood (Gallahue et al., 2012). The development of motor skills and physical abilities during childhood is influenced by the growth and development of physiological structures and systems and by the evolution of the sensorimotor apparatus. This explains why there are variations in the relationship between FMS and PF among children of different ages. Studies conducted by Lima et al. (2019), Stodden et al. (2014), and Vedul-Kjelsås et al. (2012) support this idea. These investigations have been conducted across developmental stages, encompassing both prepubertal (Luz et al., 2017; Stodden et al., 2014) and pubertal cohorts (Bremer & Cairney, 2018; Cattuzzo et al., 2016). Fundamental movement skill assessments diverge in their methodological approaches: Process-oriented assessments provide a qualitative analysis of movement execution and pattern, whereas product-oriented assessments offer a quantitative score, reflecting the movement’s outcome.

Logan et al. (2016) reported moderate to strong correlational relationships between these two assessment types. However, the significance of process-oriented assessments is amplified when research aims to extend beyond quantifying motor outcomes to mapping the developmental trajectory of motor competence. The rich, nuanced insights from process-oriented evaluation are essential for crafting targeted interventions and pedagogical strategies to enhance motor competence within a developmental framework. Therefore, utilizing process-oriented assessments in studying motor competence is justified, particularly when the research focuses on qualitative developmental progress rather than purely quantitative performance outcomes. Enhancing prepubertal children’s motor proficiency is about acquiring fundamental movement patterns, which product-oriented measurements cannot fully capture. Therefore, we investigated whether correlations between FMS and PF identified during childhood persist when evaluated through a process-oriented approach. Specifically, we engaged in a relatively novel exploration of correlations between process-oriented evaluations of FMS domains and PF components in children aged 5 to 11.

Method

Ethical Considerations

The Institutional Review Board of UNIOESTE approved this research protocol (reference #2443061). Parents or legal guardians of all children provided informed consent for their children’s participation in the evaluation and using their data for this study. Furthermore, they provided written consent to disclose demographic information about their child.

Participants

In this cross-sectional study, we used descriptive and correlational methodology for our 720 elementary-aged school students (383 girls, 337 boys; M age = 8.8, SD = 1.52 years) attending first to fifth grades at eleven elementary schools in southern Brazil. Participants were selected through a non-probabilistic convenience sample. There were no significant age differences between genders. For data analysis purposes, children were divided into three age groups: (a) 5–6 years (M = 6.6, SD 0.29), 7–8 years (M = 8.0, SD 0.57), and 9–11 years (M = 10.2, SD = 0.81).

We chose one random class from each grade in each school. All students in the selected classrooms were eligible to participate, provided they attended both days of data collection and completed all domains of the physical tests. We consulted the participating schools to identify students with reported physical or cognitive disabilities that could influence their performance in motor activities. While all children from the selected classes participated in the study, we excluded those with previously reported disabilities from data analyses.

Data Collection

Demographics

We used the Brazilian Criteria of Economic Classification - BCEC (In Portuguese: Critério de Classificação Econômica Brasil - CCEB) (Pilli et al., 2015) to classify the information we collected about the participants’ sex, date of birth, and grade level through a structured sociodemographic questionnaire. As noted above, participants’ parents and/or legal guardians voluntarily consented to their child participating in the study and completed the demographic survey.

Fundamental Movement Skills

We evaluated the children’s FMS proficiency levels with the FG-COMPASS, an assessment tool used in clinical and educational settings for assessing fundamental movement skill proficiency in children between 5 and 10 years of age. The FG-COMPASS measures eight motor skills, including three locomotor (skip, hop, broad jump) and five manipulative skills (catch, overhand throw, stationary dribble, kick, strike). Multiple studies have confirmed the validity and reliability of the test, including evidence for content-related validity (Furtado, 2004), reliability of classification decisions (Furtado & Gallagher, 2012), concurrent validity, expert-rater agreement, and intra-rater reliability (Woolever, 2016).

To strengthen the internal validity of our study, four raters underwent training by assessing previously recorded videos of children performing these skills before they rated live assessments in the schools. We provided criteria detailing the necessary observations for the eight fundamental motor skills, each with four videos to be classified. After the raters classified all four videos for each skill, we reviewed their scores with the principal investigator (PI) and discussed disagreements. Forty-eight hours after the training, the raters returned to the lab to watch and classify twelve new videos of each skill. We compared their scores to those of an expert (gold standard). Weighted Kappa test results indicated adequate agreement (Cohen, 1960) between raters and the expert for the locomotor subtest (Κ_W = .84), manipulative subtest (Κ_W = .88), and all skills combined (Κ_W = .87).

One week following training, raters assessed the motor skills during the children’s physical education classes by setting up stations for each skill. They assessed the qualitative aspects of each trial following the FG-COMPASS protocol in a live setting and recorded scores for further analyses. A precedent exists to assess FMS in live settings (Behan et al., 2019). When considering the theory of positive transfer of learning (Magill & Anderson, 2021), assessing performance from video would transfer positively when assessing in a live setting. In addition, Woolever et al. (2016) found good intra-rater agreement between video and live setting assessment of locomotor skills (Kw = .69), manipulative skill (Kw = .70), and total test (Kw = .70). Children received verbal instructions and a task demonstration before performing each skill four times. The first trial served as practice, and the remaining three trials were scored based on consistency and compliance with the criteria. Each skill was assigned a score ranging from 1 to 4 points. Administering the motor test to groups of 12–20 students took approximately 40 minutes.

Physical Fitness

We used the Brazil Sports Project - PROESP-BR test battery (Gaya et al., 2021) to measure lower limb muscle power and neuromuscular function, which included tests for flexibility, muscular endurance, explosive upper limb force, agility, and speed. To measure lower limb power, we conducted vertical jumps against movement on the Multisprint Hidrofit jump mat, which was mapped using the Jump Test software recommended by Bosco and Riu (1994). During the lower limb power test, participants were given three chances to perform a jump with 3–5 seconds of rest in between. We recorded their best performance from the three jumps. Participants were allowed to make two attempts for the remaining tests, including flexibility, muscular endurance, explosive force of the upper limbs, agility, and speed. The best result from the two attempts was recorded for further analysis.

Statistical Analyses

We stratified the collected data by sex and age, employing the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to ascertain a normal distribution. We used independent t-tests and analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to compare FMS and PF levels, followed by Tukey’s-t post hoc analyses, and we calculated effect sizes in terms of Cohen’s d and partial eta squared (Cohen, 1988). The former was interpreted as small = 0.2–0.5; medium = 0.5–0.8; large = > 0.8 and the latter as small ≈0.01; medium ≈0.06; or large ≈0.14.

Through hierarchical linear regression models, we sought to identify factors potentially predicting different aspects of PF, encompassing locomotor and manipulative capabilities and comprehensive fitness. We considered PA levels and demographic data as prospective predictors. Our analysis utilized the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, v. 21). We set a significance level at alpha ≤.05.

Results

Table 1 presents the FMS and PF scores by age group and sex. We noticed significant sex differences in the execution of motor tests in the 7–8-year-old age group for locomotor skills and across all other age groups for manipulative skills. Notable differences were also observed in the PF variables across all age groups, particularly among female participants for flexibility and among male participants for abdominal resistance and speed. From age seven, boys surpassed girls in the explosive strength of the upper limbs (ULEF), agility, and lower limbs (LLEF).

Table 1.

Descriptive Data of FMS and PF by Sex and Age Group.

Variables	Age Group	Sex				(df) t Value	Cohen’s d (CI 95%)
		Females		Males
		n	M (SD)	n	M (SD)
Locomotor	5–6	54	7.40 (1.74)	55	7.21 (1.90)	(107) −.541
	7–8	141	8.01 (1.78)	131	7.55 (1.84)	(270) −2.081*	.25 (.01–.49)
	9–11	188	7.86 (1.90)	151	7.94 (1.87)	(337) .387
Manipulative	5–6	54	10.37 (2.08)	55	13.21 (2.91)	(107) 5.854***	1.12 (.72–1.53)
	7–8	141	12.75 (2.06)	131	15.03 (2.53)	(270) 8.165***	.99 (.74 – 1,24)
	9–11	188	14.06 (2.12)	151	16.30 (2.01)	(337) 9.841***	1.08 (.85–1.30)
HM global	5–6	54	17.77 (2.83)	55	20.43 (3.59)	(107) 4.280***	.82 (.43–1.21)
	7–8	141	20.76 (3.08)	131	22.58 (3.58)	(270) 4.506***	.55 (.30–.79)
	9–11	188	21.93 (3.15)	151	24.25 (3.19)	(337) 6.675***	.73 (.51–.95)
Flexibility (cm)	5–6	54	40.74 (7.91)	55	37.96 (6.06)	(107) −2.059*	.39 (.02–.77)
	7–8	141	39.02 (7.91)	131	36.54 (7.80)	(270) −2.594*	.31 (.08–.55)
	9–11	188	38.38 (9.92)	151	35.24 (8.08)	(337) −3.143**	.34 (.13–.56)
	5–6	54	17.91 (7.48)	55	21.11 (8.58)	(107) 2.076*	.40 (.02–.78)
Abdominal resistance (reps)	7–8	141	21.80 (7.34)	131	25.17 (7.32)	(270) 3.783***	.46 (.22–.70)
	9–11	188	23.30 (8.23)	151	26.77 (8.60)	(337) 3.787***	.41 (.20–.63)
	5–6	54	1.50 (.26)	55	1.49 (0.32)	(107) −.199
LLEF (meters)	7–8	141	1.76 (.34)	131	1.91 (0.38)	(270) 3.419**	.41 (.17–.66)
	9–11	188	2.27 (.41)	151	2.49 (0.46)	(337) 4.474***	.49 (.27–.71)
	5–6	54	8.48 (.85)	55	8.22 (0.98)	(107) −1.458
Agility (sec)	7–8	141	8.17 (.78)	131	7.80 (0.69)	(270) −4.024***	.49 (.25–.73)
	9–11	188	7.47 (.71)	151	7.18 (0.75)	(337) −3.708***	.41 (.19–.62)
	5–6	54	15.77 (2.79)	55	16.72 (3.34)	(107) 1.603
ULEF (cm)	7–8	141	17.59 (3.15)	131	18.77 (3.82)	(270) 2.785**	.34 (.10–.58)
	9–11	188	19.32 (3.45)	151	20.70 (4.14)	(337) 3.332**	.36 (.15–.58)
	5–6	54	5.23 (.53)	55	4.87 (.54)	(107) −3.492**	.67 (.28–1.05)
Speed (seg)	7–8	141	4.86 (.48)	131	4.64 (.45)	(270) −3.758***	.46 (.22–.70)
Speed (seg)	9–11	188	4.51 (.50)	151	4.37 (.57)	(337) −2.466*	.27 (.05–.48)

Note. HM Global: Locomotor and manipulative skills combined; LLEF (Upper Limbs Explosive Force); ULEF (Lower Limbs Explosive Force).

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 2 depicts differences among the age groups in the children’s FMS and PF test scores. Apart from locomotor and flexibility, all other variables reflected a significant age-based improvement in FMS and PF performance, as one would anticipate observing in these age groups. For the locomotor and flexibility variables, significant differences in performance were only noticeable in the 5–6-year-old and 9–11-year age groups.

Table 2.

Motor Skills and Physical Fitness Test Scores by Age Group.

Variables	Age Groups			(df) F Value	$η_{p}^{2}$
	5–6 yrs. (n = 109)	7–8 yrs. (n = 272)	9–11 yrs. (n = 339)
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Locomotor	7.31 (1.81)^a	7.79 (1.82) ^ab	7.90 (1.88)^b	(2, 717) 4.222*	.012
Manipulative	11.80 (2.90)^a	13.84 (2.56)^b	15.06 (2.35)^c	(2, 717) 71.093***	.165
HM global	19.11 (3.49)^a	21.64 (3.44)^b	22.96 (3.37)^c	(2, 717) 53.316***	.129
Flexibility	39.33 (7.14)^a	37.82 (7.94)^ab	36.98 (9.27)^b	(2, 717) 3.245*	.009
Abdominal resistance	19.52 (8.17)^a	23.42 (7.51)^b	24.85 (8.56)^c	(2, 717) 17.739***	.047
LLEF	1.50 (.29)^a	1.83 (.37)^b	2.37 (.45)^c	(2, 717) 249.134***	.410
Agility	8.35 (.92)^a	7.99 (.76)^b	7.34 (.74)^c	(2, 717) 90.718***	.202
ULEF	16.25 (3.10)^a	18.16 (3.53)^b	19.94 (3.83)^c	(2, 717) 47.726***	.117
Speed	5.05 (.56)^a	4.45 (.48)^b	4.45 (.54)^c	(2, 717) 61.569***	.147

Note. HM Global: Global Motor Skills Index; LLEF: Upper Limbs Explosive Force; ULEF: Lower Limbs Explosive Force.

Superscript means with different letters present statistically significant differences according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ .05).

$η_{p}^{2} = Partial eta squared$ .

Significance for F test - *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 3 presents two hierarchical regression models that we utilized to assess the predictor variables of locomotor skills. The equation of the second model, which considers PF and sociodemographic variables, explained 12.7% of the variability in locomotor skills, identifying agility, speed, ULEF, and gender as predictive variables.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression Coefficients of Physical Fitness and Sociodemographic Variables on Locomotor Skills.

Predictors	Model 1		Model 2
Predictors	β	t Value (6, 713)^a	β	t Value (9, 710)^a
Flexibility	.089	2.499*	.064	1.774
Abdominal resistance	.038	.950	.053	1.337
LLEF	−.098	−2.324*	−.045	−.848
Agility	.089	1.907	.113	2.369*
Speed	.110	2.303*	.119	2.469*
ULEF	.211	4.767***	.216	4.891***
SES			−.004	−.102
Sex			.113	3.016**
Age			−.087	−1.646
R ²	.114		.127
ΔR²	—		.013
F	(6, 713) 15.279***		(9, 710) 11.428**

Note. LLEF: Lower Limbs Explosive Force; ULEF: Lower Limbs Explosive Force; Model 1: Predictors of Physical Fitness (Flexibility, Abdominal, Upper Limb Power, Agility, Speed, Lower Limb Power); Model 2: Physical and Sociodemographic Fitness Predictors (Flexibility, Abdominal, Upper Limb Power, Agility, Speed, Lower Limb Power, Social Economic Status, Gender, Age in Years).

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

^aRegression degrees of freedom, Residual degrees of freedom.

Table 4 displays the predictors from the second regression model, accounting for 41.7% of the variability. The factors that notably emerged as predictors of manipulative abilities include flexibility, abdominal resistance, LLEF, ULEF, gender, and age.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regression Coefficients of Physical Fitness and Sociodemographic Variables on Manipulative Skills.

Predictors	Model 1		Model 2
Predictors	β	t Value (6, 713)^a	β	t Value (9, 710)^a
Flexibility	−.122	−3.913***	−.058	−1.968*
Abdominal resistance	.150	4.308***	.110	3.352**
LLEF	.254	6.869***	.153	3.532***
Agility	.129	3.124**	.073	1.875
Speed	.103	2.452*	.076	1.937
ULEF	.115	2.961**	.103	2.868**
SES			−.046	−1.572
Sex			−.320	−10.469***
Age			.176	4.105***
R ²	.318		.417
ΔR²	—		.099
F	(6, 713) 55.438***		(9, 710) 56.349***

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

^aRegression degrees of freedom, Residual degrees of freedom.

Table 5 illustrates that the second regression model explains 33.7% of the variability in the Global FMS index. The factors that notably emerge as predictors of the Global FMS index include FMS, abdominal resistance, EMEF, agility, speed, ULEF, and gender.

Table 5.

Hierarchical Regression Coefficients of Physical Fitness and Sociodemographic Variables on the Global Index of Fundamental Motor Skills.

Variables	Model 1		Model 2
Variables	β	t Value (6, 713)^a	β	t Value (9, 710)^a
Flexibility	−.047	−1.485	−.011	−.356
Abdominal resistance	.132	3.758***	.110	3.149**
LLEF	.142	3.790***	.093	2.002*
Agility	.142	3.424***	.112	2.708**
Speed	.134	3.150**	.118	2.809**
ULEF	.194	4.943***	.188	4.880***
SES			−.037	−1.171
Sex			−.184	−5.639***
Age			.089	1.941
R ²	.304		.337
ΔR²	—		.033
F	(6, 713) 51.816***		(9, 710) 40.010***

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

^aRegression degrees of freedom, Residual degrees of freedom.

Discussion

In this research, we examined how the different areas of FMS relate to the various components of PF in children aged 5–11 years. Notably, we found significant positive correlations between most facets of PF (including cardiorespiratory conditioning, flexibility, and muscle strength) and the three motor skills domains: locomotor, manipulative, and overall motor competence (MC). In line with prior research (Cattuzzo et al., 2016; Robinson et al., 2015; Stodden et al., 2013, 2014), these findings reinforce that proficiency in FMS is closely linked with higher PF levels. This provides a robust argument for the importance of early and continuous development of FMS in children to promote an active and healthy lifestyle. Moreover, these data highlighted the impact of motor development in this relationship, leading to a more nuanced understanding of how these variables interact across different age groups and genders. Thus, our study offers valuable insights for educators and policymakers aiming to enhance physical education programs and overall health initiatives for children.

These results align with the dynamic interaction posited in Stodden’s (2008) model, demonstrating a bidirectional relationship between FMS and PF. Children with proficient FMS tended to exhibit higher PF levels, while regular engagement in physical activities and PF development also contributed to FMS enhancement. This bidirectional relationship emphasizes the significance of an early introduction to various motor activities that promote FMS. From a developmental perspective, exposing children to various types of physical activity can help them achieve better levels of FMS performance and ultimately improve their PF. Simultaneously, the children’s improved PF could further enhance their motor skill proficiency as they become physically fitter. Mastering FMS can help children overcome the hypothesized proficiency barrier that was first introduced by Seefeldt (De Meester et al., 2018; Slykerman et al., 2016) and revisited by Brian et al. (2020), which may boost the development of health-enhancing PA habits (Hulteen et al., 2018) providing a base for attaining recommended PA guidelines (Slaton et al., 2020). Although Barnett et al. (2022) found that the pathway from FMS to PA is undetermined, our findings underscore the necessity for comprehensive physical education programs in early childhood that encompass diverse activities to enhance FMS and PF, fostering a healthy, active lifestyle from a young age that can be carried forward into adolescence and adulthood.

The dynamic and reciprocal association between MC and PF can be explained through complementary perspectives. The direct pathway is characterized by the cultivation of common neuromuscular mechanisms integral to PF activities and motor coordination (Cattuzzo et al., 2016). Learning and developing locomotor and object control skills often involves repetitive movement practice in sports settings, physical education classes, and through participation in playground informal games, which inherently demand high levels of muscular activities (concentric and eccentric), body weight displacement, and power outputs promoting cardiorespiratory and muscle strength (Latash et al., 2007). Furthermore, from a synergistic approach, movement repetition improves neural synchronicity. It reduces degrees of freedom for better neuromuscular coordination of FMS and the development of PF traits such as strength and velocity (Bruton & O'Dwyer, 2018).

Alternatively, as the literature supports, the indirect pathway explains the concomitant relationship between MC, PF variables, and PA engagement during childhood (Cattuzzo et al., 2016; Saraiva & Lopes, 2019). Hulteen et al. (2018) suggested that FMS are foundation skills that support and maximize opportunities for PA participation. This pathway underscores the importance of fostering active, non-sedentary lifestyles in childhood and adolescence, with potential impacts extending across the lifespan (Saraiva & Lopes, 2019; Stodden et al., 2014).

The formative years of elementary school are critical for cultivating FMS in children. These skills underpin acquiring more specialized skills in the later stages of life. Hence, this childhood phase is paramount in establishing a robust foundation for FMS development. When environmental and individual conditions align to facilitate the adequate development of FMS (Gallahue et al., 2012; Gonçalv et al., 1995), a surge in PA levels among children can be observed (Robinson et al., 2015). Longitudinal studies indicate that the link between motor skills and PA levels tends to diminish as children transition into adolescence and young adulthood unless high levels of PF accompany this transition (Stodden et al., 2013, 2014). Consequently, PF is a mediating factor between MC and PA levels. Moreover, we emphasize that the concurrent development of FMS and PF during childhood, specifically between the ages of 5 and 11, could substantially influence PA behavior in the later stages of life.

The reciprocal influence and mutual development of MC and PF may reflect the shared use of the same sensory and neuromotor mechanisms. For example, the present study and previous research (Stodden et al., 2014) show evidence of an association between locomotor and manipulative skills with variables of strength, power, and muscular endurance. This may be linked to neuromotor adaptation or improvement of intermuscular performance, considering that the production of effective coordination patterns to the objective of the motor task required by the FMS and PF tests share the same components and mechanisms (Cattuzzo et al., 2016), either by the recruitment of muscle fibers and activation of motor skills such as static and dynamic balance, multi-limbs coordination, and manual dexterity.

Association of FMS and PF Domains

We examined how two FMS domains are linked to different measures of PF in various age groups during childhood for both males and females. The impact of age and sex as intervening factors is discussed separately. The results presented in Table 3 demonstrate that the strength capacity of the lower limbs, speed, and agility were predictors of locomotor skills. Previous studies have established the relationship between locomotor skills and PF (Luz et al., 2017; Saraiva & Lopes, 2019). According to Saraiva and Lopes (2019), there is an association between motor coordination, measured by locomotor skills, and PF. Similarly, Luz et al. (2017) found a strong correlation between locomotor skills and the PF index. However, Saraiva and Lopes (2019) argued that the correlation observed resulted from the cardiorespiratory fitness component and its intrinsic relationship with running ability.

Saraiva and Lopes (2019) corroborated the most recent information on the relationship between locomotor skills and physical fitness (PF). They broadened this understanding by specifying that PF variables directly related to body displacements, such as lower limb explosive force, running speed, and agility with directional changes, explain the variability observed in the quality of locomotor skill movement. Furthermore, multiple aspects of neuromuscular activation are shared between PF activities and motor skills, reaffirming the reciprocal influence between these variables during childhood (Williams et al., 2021). Neuromuscular training enhances neural and muscular adaptations, reflecting positively on motor development, especially before puberty, when neural plasticity and new myelin formation are more likely to occur (Purger et al., 2016).

Our regression analysis showed that flexibility, upper limb explosive strength, lower limb explosive strength, and abdominal resistance predicted manipulative skill scores, even when controlling for sex and age. In addition, more PF variables were linked to manipulative skills than locomotor skills, demonstrating the close relationship between object control skills and various aspects of PF. According to Cattuzo et al. (2016), proficiency in manipulative skills significantly determines the success of practicing fundamental sports activities, particularly those involving ballistic movements. The FG-COMPASS test measures fundamental movement skills that require coordination to control numerous degrees of freedom to perform well in pre-sports games. These skills are often practiced by children in elementary school.

Playground informal games are pedagogical techniques that prioritize children as the main participants in learning sports. Children can understand the sport beyond its rules and learn to perceive, analyze, and make decisions during gameplay. Children must be free to conduct the game and better understand how it works. These informal games are the initial phase for a child to comprehend the actual functioning of a sport. These games can be fun to improve one’s movement skills, strength, and muscle endurance. In addition, such games provide adequate stimulation to yield favorable outcomes in these domains. While our findings were confined to the prepubertal stage, we consider it plausible, given existing sports literature, that the simultaneous progression of manipulative abilities and neuromuscular factors could affect health metrics in future life stages.

Vlahov et al. (2014) conducted a longitudinal analysis over 11 years and demonstrated that developing manipulative skills in childhood could predict neuromuscular fitness levels of strength and flexibility in late adolescence. This finding suggested that the positive association between physical fitness (PF) and fundamental motor skills (FMS) in childhood may form a feedback loop that serves as a basis for future PF development or even persisting throughout childhood and adolescence.

Interaction of Gender and Age Variables in the Development of FMS and PF

In line with motor development theories (Gallahue et al., 2012; Gonçalv et al., 1995), the level of global motor development and motor skill domains show significant improvement over the years evaluated (see Table 2). Therefore, the motor development we observed may have been due to the interaction of environmental and individual attributes (affordances) during child development (Gallahue et al., 2012; Gonçalv et al., 1995).

We found that manipulative scores increased linearly across different age groups (refer to Table 2). However, we did not find a significant difference between the 7–8 and 9–11 age groups for locomotor skills. This can be partly explained by the theoretical model of the Heuristic Hourglass of Motor Development proposed by Gallahue et al. (2012). In this developmental model, children between the ages of 5 and 7 are in the fundamental motor phase, specifically the elementary and mature stages, having already surpassed the initial stage. At the end of this phase, children are expected to have achieved a sufficient level of motor proficiency to successfully participate in more challenging physical activities.

It is worth noting that the rate of development of manipulative skills tends to outpace that of locomotor skills. This could be because fundamental locomotor actions like walking, running, and jumping are usually mastered early in life, whereas manipulative skills generally develop later. However, the perceived disparity between the progression of locomotor and manipulative skills might also reflect the limitations of the FG-COMPASS when these data were collected, as the FG-COMPASS included only three locomotor and five manipulative skills. The imbalance in the test battery could have influenced these results. Additional research should be conducted to verify this hypothesis, particularly given that two more locomotor skills have been incorporated (Perez & Furtado, 2024) into the test since these data were collected.

As expected, our findings revealed that PF scores increase with age, echoing results in previous research (Luz et al., 2017; Malina et al., 2009; Saraiva & Lopes, 2019). Flexibility, however, showed a reverse trend, with scores diminishing as age increased. This latter finding can be attributed to alterations in the ratios of elastin and collagen in children’s muscle-bone-joint systems (Malina et al., 2009), perhaps due to the onset of puberty, especially among girls in the older age group.

Regarding sex differences observed in the performance of motor skills, girls’ superior locomotor skills stood out, corroborating findings from Eather et al. (2018) and Zheng et al. (2022). In the Brazilian patriarchal culture, even playing carries some gender stigma because, among the games in the children’s play repertoire, rhythmic movements that incorporate the skipping skill skipping are performed more often by girls, who consequently carry a more refined motor vocabulary than boys in locomotor skills. Skipping is an important fundamental movement skill in various sports, such as athletics, handball, gymnastics, and basketball. It lays the groundwork for mastering more advanced skills. Unfortunately, it is often disregarded in favor of other abilities when developing fundamental informal game skills.

Our comparative analysis found that boys outperformed girls in manipulative skills across all age groups, consistent with previous findings (Lopes et al., 2011; Luz et al., 2017). A meta-analysis by Zheng et al. (2022) also found that boys tended to outperform girls in manipulative fundamental movement skills from ages 3 to 6. During this developmental phase, the progress of motor skills is heavily influenced by the amount of practice and quality of instructions. In addition, it is well-known that girls tend to participate less in physical activities than boys during childhood. As a result, it is unsurprising that boys often have a more advanced range of motor skills (Holfelder & Schott, 2014), as demonstrated in a large sample of 3- to 10-year-old-children from Brazil (Spessato et al., 2013).

Our current study found that males consistently had the highest scores on the PF variables, especially males aged between 7 and 8 years. This contradicts prior literature, suggesting no notable variations in biological parameters impacting performance between genders before puberty (Malina et al., 2009). Parental support is a crucial aspect of the sociocultural forces contributing to PF differences. Boxberger and Reimers (2019) found that outdoor activities positively benefited cardiorespiratory fitness, health outcomes, and FMS. However, gender-based disparities in parenting styles exist; parents of males were more likely to approve of their children’s independent outdoor play than parents of females (Soori & Bhopal, 2002).

Additionally, Brazilian male adolescents receive stronger social and familial reinforcement for participating in physical activities than their female peers (Gonçalves et al., 2007). Although their research focused on an older population, the existing literature, including Goellner (2010), corroborates a deeply ingrained bias supporting sports and physical exercise primarily for Brazilian male children and adolescents. These data highlight the need for culturally sensitive interventions that support equitable physical activity involvement for all genders, as it points to a cultural environment subtly encouraging gender differences in physical activity engagement.

Limitations and Directions for Further Research

Among the limitations of this study is that only neuromuscular PF variables were analyzed, restricting our ability to directly compare our data with data from other studies in which PF data included the cardiorespiratory component. However, extensive previous research has focused on the cardiorespiratory component of PF in childhood (Luz et al., 2017; Rodrigues et al., 2011; Vlahov et al., 2014).

Secondly, as noted earlier, the FG-COMPASS unevenly assesses skills between the manipulative (five) and locomotor (three) domains. Nevertheless, we assessed more skills for each domain than did other investigators who explored the relationship between these variables in childhood. We chose the FG-COMPASS because it is a process-oriented assessment tool, and it provides a more accurate evaluation of the quality of FMS performance by reflecting the internal mechanisms involved in processing information necessary for controlled voluntary movements.

Finally, although we focused on variables relevant to Stodden’s theoretical model, it is important to note that we examined only a portion of the model. The body mass index (BMI) variable was not included, which may have influenced the observed associations. Future investigators should address this omission.

Practical Considerations

We offer the following practical implications and suggestions for teachers and practitioners to (a) promote the proper development of FMS and PF in children, (b) improve children’s health parameters, and (c) foster children’s optimal trajectories into adolescence and adulthood:

• Educate people about the critical elementary school period of motor skill development and emphasize the link between FMS development and PF to promote child health.

• Focus on developing FMS and PF, especially for females.

• Recognize the importance of developing coordination and strength capacities in an integrated manner. Both are essential to empowering children to acquire and practice complex skills functionally.

Conclusion

We found a significant relationship between fundamental movement skills and physical fitness variables related to neuromuscular development in elementary school-aged children, regardless of age or gender. However, the association between locomotor skills and PF variables was limited to skills involving spatial-location movement and lower limb strength. In contrast, manipulative skills showed a broader association with the neuromuscular variables of PF, which are crucial for both health and athletic performance. We discussed the limitations of this study, directions for further research, and practical implications of these results for promoting children’s health and their further healthy development.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Oldemar Mazzardo

Dartel Ferrari de Lima

Dayane Cristina de Souza

Ovande Furtado, Jr

Author Biographies

Oldemar Mazzardo Jr is an assistant professor at the Western Parana State University, Brazil.

Barbara Maria Weis is a Physical Education teacher at Senador Attilio Fontana High School, Brazil.

Adelar Aparecido Sampaio is an assistant professor at the Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil.

Dartel Ferrari de Lima is an associate professor at the Western Parana State University, Brazil.

Dayane Cristina de Souza is an adjunct professor at the Western Parana State University, Brazil.

Ovande Furtado, Jr is an associate professor at California State University, Northridge.

References

Ainsworth

B. E.

Herrmann

S. D.

Jacobs

D. R.

Whitt-Glover

M. C.

Tudor-Locke

(2024). A brief history of the compendium of physical activities. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 13(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2023.10.001

Barnett

L. M.

Webster

E. K.

Hulteen

R. M.

De Meester

Valentini

N. C.

Lenoir

Pesce

Getchell

Lopes

V. P.

Robinson

L. E.

Brian

Rodrigues

L. P.

(2022). Through the looking glass: A systematic review of longitudinal evidence, providing new insight for motor competence and health. Sports Medicine, 52(4), 875–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01516-8

Behan

Belton

Peers

O’Connor

N. E.

Issartel

(2019). Moving well-being well: Investigating the maturation of fundamental movement skill proficiency across sex in Irish children aged five to twelve. Journal of Sports Sciences, 37(22), 2604–2612. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1651144

Bosco

Riu

J. M. P.

(1994). The assessment of strength with the Bosco test. Paidotribo.

Boxberger

Reimers

A. K.

(2019). Parental correlates of outdoor play in boys and girls aged 0 to 12: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(2), 190. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020190

Bremer

Cairney

(2018). Fundamental movement skills and health-related outcomes: A narrative review of longitudinal and intervention studies targeting typically developing children. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 12(2), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559827616640196

Brian

Getchell

True

De Meester

Stodden

D. F.

(2020). Reconceptualizing and operationalizing Seefeldt’s proficiency barrier: Applications and future directions. Sports 50(11):1889–1900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01332-6

Bruton

O’Dwyer

(2018). Synergies in coordination: A comprehensive overview of neural, computational, and behavioural approaches. Journal of Neurophysiology, 120(6), 2761–2774. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00052.2018

Cattuzzo

M. T.

Dos Santos Henrique

Ré

A. H. N.

de Oliveira

I. S.

Melo

B. M.

de Sousa Moura

de Araújo

R. C.

Stodden

(2016). Motor competence and health related physical fitness in youth: A systematic review. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 19(2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.12.004

10.

Cohen

(1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104

11.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.

12.

De Meester

Stodden

Goodway

True

Brian

Ferkel

Haerens

(2018). Identifying a motor proficiency barrier for meeting physical activity guidelines in children. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 21(1), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2017.05.007

13.

Eather

Bull

Young

M. D.

Barnes

A. T.

Pollock

E. R.

Morgan

P. J.

(2018). Fundamental movement skills: Where do girls fall short? A novel investigation of object-control skill execution in primary-school aged girls. Prev Med Rep, 11, 191–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.06.005. 29992086

14.

Engel

A. C.

Broderick

C. R.

van Doorn

Hardy

L. L.

Parmenter

B. J.

(2018). Exploring the relationship between fundamental motor skill interventions and physical activity levels in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 48(8), 1845–1857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0923-3

15.

Freitas

D. L.

Lausen

Maia

J. A.

Gouveia

E. R.

Thomis

Lefevre

Silva

R. D.

Malina

R. M.

(2016). Skeletal maturation, body size, and motor coordination in youth 11–14 years. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 48(6), 1129–1135. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000873

16.

Furtado

Jr. (2004). Furtado-Gallagher movement skill assessment: Collecting evidence for content-related validity [(Master’s thesis). University of Pittsburgh]. http://etd.library.pitt.edu/ETD/available/etd-12042004-093510/.

17.

Furtado

Jr. Gallagher

J. D.

(2012). The reliability of classification decisions for the Furtado-Gallagher Computerized Observational Movement Pattern Assessment System--FG-COMPASS. Res Q Exerc Sport, 83(3), 383–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2012.10599872. 22978187

18.

Gallahue

D. L.

Ozmun

J. C.

Goodway

(2012). Understanding motor development: Infants, children, adolescents, adults. McGraw-Hill.

19.

García-Hermoso

Ramírez-Campillo

Izquierdo

(2019). Is muscular fitness associated with future health benefits in children and adolescents? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Sports Medicine, 49(7), 1079–1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01098-6

20.

Gaya

A. R.

Gaya

A. C. A.

Pedretti

Mello

J. B.

(2021). Brazil sport project, PROESP-Br: Manual of measurements, tests and evaluations. UFRGS/ESEFID. https://lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/217804

21.

Goellner

S. V.

Votre

S. J.

Mourão

Figueira

M. L. M.

(2010). Leisure and gender in sport and leisure programs of cities. LICERE-Revista do Programa de Pós-graduação Interdisciplinar em Estudos do Lazer, 13(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.35699/1981-3171.2010.815

22.

Gonçalv

G. d A. C.

Gonçalves

A. K.

Júnior

A. P.

(1995). Motor development according to the Dynamic Systems Theory. Motriz, 1(1), 8–14.

23.

Gonçalves

Hallal

P. C.

Amorim

T. C.

Araújo

C. L.

Menezes

A. M.

(2007). Fatores socioculturais e nível de atividade física no início da adolescência. Revista Panamericana de Salud Públic, 22(4), 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1020-49892007000900004

24.

Holfelder

Schott

(2014). Relationship of fundamental movement skills and physical activity in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(4), 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.03.005

25.

Hulteen

R. M.

Morgan

P. J.

Barnett

L. M.

Stodden

D. F.

Lubans

D. R.

(2018). Development of foundational movement skills: A conceptual model for physical activity across the lifespan. Sports Medicine, 48(7), 1533–1540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0892-6

26.

Jaakkola

Yli-Piipari

Huotari

Watt

Liukkonen

(2016). Fundamental movement skills and physical fitness as predictors of physical activity: A 6-year follow-up study. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 26(1), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12407

27.

Landry

B. W.

Driscoll

S. W.

(2012). Physical activity in children and adolescents. PM&R, 4(11), 826–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.09.585

28.

Latash

M. L.

Scholz

J. P.

Schöner

(2007). Toward a new theory of motor synergies. Motor Control, 11(3), 276–308. https://doi.org/10.1123/mcj.11.3.276

29.

Lima

R. A.

Bugge

Ersbøll

A. K.

Stodden

D. F.

Andersen

L. B.

(2019). The longitudinal relationship between motor competence and measures of fatness and fitness from childhood into adolescence. Jornal de Pediatria, 95(4), 482–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2018.02.010

30.

Lloyd

Saunders

T. J.

Bremer

Tremblay

M. S.

(2014). Long-term importance of fundamental motor skills: A 20-year follow-up study. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly: Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 31(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq:2013-0048

31.

Logan

S. W.

Barnett

L. M.

Goodway

J. D.

Stodden

D. F.

(2017). Comparison of performance on process- and product-oriented assessments of fundamental motor skills across childhood. Journal of Sports Science, 35(7), 634–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1183803

32.

Logan

S. W.

Kipling Webster

Getchell

Pfeiffer

K. A.

Robinson

L. E.

(2015). Relationship between fundamental motor skill competence and physical activity during childhood and adolescence: A systematic review. Kinesiology Review, 4(4), 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2013-0012

33.

Lopes

V. P.

Rodrigues

L. P.

Maia

J. a. R.

Malina

R. M.

(2011). Motor coordination as predictor of physical activity in childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 21(5), 663–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01027.x

34.

Luz

Rodrigues

L. P.

Meester

A. D.

Cordovil

(2017). The relationship between motor competence and health-related fitness in children and adolescents. PLoS One, 12(6), Article e0179993. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179993

35.

Magill

R. A.

Anderson

D. I.

(2021). Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

36.

Malina

R. M.

Bouchard

Bar-or

(2003). Growth, maturation and physical activity (2nd ed.). Human Kinetics.

37.

Mazzardo

Fontana

F. E.

Furtado

Gallagher

J. D.

(2018). The relationship of movement skills with habitual and organized physical activity in seven and eight-year-old children. Pensar a Prática, 21(1), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.5216/rpp.v21i1.42360

38.

Perez

Furtado

Jr. (2024). Investigating Expert-Rater Agreement and Inter/Intra-Rater Reliability of Two Fundamental Movement Skills for the Locomotor Subscale of the FG-COMPASS. Percept Mot Skills, 315125241272720. https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125241272720. 39120571

39.

Pilli

Ambrósio

Suzzara

Alves

Reis

Yamakawa

Nunes

Wakaguri

Mazzo

Tassari

(2015). Brazilian market research association. ABEP. https://www.abep.org/criterio-brasil.

40.

Purger

Gibson

E. M.

Monje

(2016). Myelin plasticity in the central nervous system. Neuropharmacology, 110(Pt B), 563–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2015.08.001

41.

Robinson

L. E.

Stodden

D. F.

Barnett

L. M.

Lopes

V. P.

Logan

S. W.

Rodrigues

L. P.

D’Hondt

(2015). Motor competence and its effect on positive developmental trajectories of health. Sports Medicine, 45(9), 1273–1284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0351-6

42.

Rodrigues

L. P.

Saraiva

J. P.

(2011). Relationship between physical activity, physical fitness, somatic fitness, and coordination in 10-year-old children. Journal of Physical Education, 22(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4025/reveducfis.v22i1.9206

43.

Saraiva

J. P.

Lopes

L. C.

(2019). Relação entre a coordenação motora E a aptidão física em crianças dos 9 aos 14 anos. Revista Brasileira de Ciência e Movimento, 27(1), 141. https://doi.org/10.31501/rbcm.v27i1.7979

44.

Slaton

Kowalski

A. J.

Zemanick

Pulling Kuhn

Hager

E. R.

Black

M. M.

(2020). Motor competence and attainment of global physical activity guidelines among a statewide sample of preschoolers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8546. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228546

45.

Slykerman

Ridgers

N. D.

Stevenson

Barnett

L. M.

(2016). How important is young children's actual and perceived movement skill competence to their physical activity? Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 19(6), 488–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2015.07.002

46.

Soori

Bhopal

R. S.

(2002). Parental permission for children’s independent outdoor activities: Implications for injury prevention. The European Journal of Public Health, 12(2), 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/12.2.104

47.

Spessato

B. C.

Gabbard

Valentini

Rudisill

(2013). Gender differences in Brazilian children’s fundamental movement skill performance. Early Child Development and Care, 183(7), 916–923. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2012.689761

48.

Stodden

D. F.

Goodway

J. D.

Langendorfer

S. J.

Roberton

M. A.

Rudisill

M. E.

Garcia

L. E.

(2008). A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship. Quest, 60(2), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2008.10483582

49.

Stodden

D. F.

Gao

Goodway

J. D.

Langendorfer

S. J.

(2014). Dynamic relationships between motor skill competence and health-related fitness in youth. Paediatric Exercise Science, 26(3), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.2013-0027

50.

Stodden

D. F.

True

L. K.

Langendorfer

S. J.

Gao

(2013). Associations among selected motor skills and health-related fitness: Indirect evidence for Seefeldt’s proficiency barrier in young adults? Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 84(3), 397–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2013.814910

51.

Vedul-Kjelsås

Sigmundsson

Stensdotter

A.-K.

Haga

(2012). The relationship between motor competence, physical fitness and self-perception in children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 38(3), 394–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.01275.x

52.

Vlahov

Baghurst

T. M.

Mwavita

(2014). Preschool motor development predicting high school health-related physical fitness: A prospective study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 119(1), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.2466/10.25.PMS.119c16z8

53.

Williams

M. D.

Ramirez-Campillo

Chaabene

Moran

(2021). Neuromuscular training and motor control in youth athletes: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 128(5), 1975–1997. https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125211029006

54.

Woolever

(2016). Comparing the results of the test of gross motor development-2 (TGMD-2) to the results of the Furtado-Gallagher computerized observational movement pattern assessment system (FG-COMPASS). [Thesis]. California State University. https://dspace.calstate.edu/handle/10211.3/173047

55.

Zheng

Korivi

Liu

Hong

(2022). Gender differences in fundamental motor skills proficiency in children aged 3–6 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8318. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148318