↓ Skip to main content

Correlates of Gross Motor Competence in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
43 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
480 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
829 Mendeley
Title
Correlates of Gross Motor Competence in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
Sports Medicine, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40279-016-0495-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa M. Barnett, Samuel K. Lai, Sanne L. C. Veldman, Louise L. Hardy, Dylan P. Cliff, Philip J. Morgan, Avigdor Zask, David R. Lubans, Sarah P. Shultz, Nicola D. Ridgers, Elaine Rush, Helen L. Brown, Anthony D. Okely

Abstract

Gross motor competence confers health benefits, but levels in children and adolescents are low. While interventions can improve gross motor competence, it remains unclear which correlates should be targeted to ensure interventions are most effective, and for whom targeted and tailored interventions should be developed. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the potential correlates of gross motor competence in typically developing children and adolescents (aged 3-18 years) using an ecological approach. Motor competence was defined as gross motor skill competency, encompassing fundamental movement skills and motor coordination, but excluding motor fitness. Studies needed to assess a summary score of at least one aspect of motor competence (i.e., object control, locomotor, stability, or motor coordination). A structured electronic literature search was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Six electronic databases (CINAHL Complete, ERIC, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO(®), Scopus and SPORTDiscus with Full Text) were searched from 1994 to 5 August 2014. Meta-analyses were conducted to determine the relationship between potential correlates and motor competency if at least three individual studies investigated the same correlate and also reported standardized regression coefficients. A total of 59 studies were identified from 22 different countries, published between 1995 and 2014. Studies reflected the full range of age groups. The most examined correlates were biological and demographic factors. Age (increasing) was a correlate of children's motor competence. Weight status (healthy), sex (male) and socioeconomic background (higher) were consistent correlates for certain aspects of motor competence only. Physical activity and sport participation constituted the majority of investigations in the behavioral attributes and skills category. Whilst we found physical activity to be a positive correlate of skill composite and motor coordination, we also found indeterminate evidence for physical activity being a correlate of object control or locomotor skill competence. Few studies investigated cognitive, emotional and psychological factors, cultural and social factors or physical environment factors as correlates of motor competence. This systematic review is the first that has investigated correlates of gross motor competence in children and adolescents. A strength is that we categorized correlates according to the specific ways motor competence has been defined and operationalized (object control, motor coordination, etc.), which enables us to have an understanding of what correlates assist what types of motor competence. Indeed our findings do suggest that evidence for some correlates differs according to how motor competence is operationalized.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 829 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 825 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 104 13%
Student > Bachelor 101 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 86 10%
Researcher 55 7%
Lecturer 37 4%
Other 167 20%
Unknown 279 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 253 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 6%
Social Sciences 49 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 46 6%
Psychology 32 4%
Other 81 10%
Unknown 316 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,165,744
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#994
of 2,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,240
of 315,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#25
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,846 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.