Notice of Retraction

After careful and considered review of the content of this paper by a duly constituted expert committee, this paper has been found to be in violation of IEEE's Publication Principles. We hereby retract the content of this paper. Reasonable effort should be made to remove all past references to this paper.

The presenting author of this paper has the option to appeal this decision by contacting TPII@ieee.org.

The Assessment of Gross Motor Skills Development among Down syndrome Children in Klang Valley

*Hosni Bin Hasan, *Nagoor Meera Abdullah, *Anuar Suun *Faculty of Sports Science and Recreation, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor

hosnihasan@salam.uitm.edu.my

Abstract- Gross motor skills is one of the precursors for successful involvement in any sports and physical activities performance. This study investigated the gross motor skills development among Down syndrome children in Klang Valley. 30 children (16 boys and 14 girls) participated in this study with the age range from 3-10 years old. They were assessed on locomotor and object control skills. It includes running, galloping, hoping, leaping, horizontal jumping, and sliding, striking, dribbling, kicking, catching, throwing and underhand roll. 10.0% of the children scored Above Average on the ratings, 30.0% Average, 23.3% Below Average, 20% Poor and 16.67% Very Poor. The mean score for boys on locomotor skills was 5.8 (SD 3.8) while for girls 6.3 (SD 2.8). The mean score for boys on object control skills was 9.6 (SD 3.5) while for the girls 9.5 (SD 3.93). There was no significant difference between boys and girls in locomotor skills. Results for object control skills also showed no significant different between boys and girls. The result shows that there was positive relationship between locomotor skills and object control skills among boys and girl. Suitable intervention strategies have to be implemented to improve the gross motor skills development among the participants.

Keywords: gross motor skills development, locomotor skills, object control skills, down syndrome children

I. INTRODUCTION

Down syndrome is most common chromosomal problem in live born babies that the condition is due to a non familial disorder caused by the presence of three 21st chromosomes rather than the usual pair [1]. Children with Down syndrome initiate and complete movements more slowly and with greater variability compare to the children without disabilities of a similar chronological age [2]. Children with this syndrome may also have other health problems such as heart disease, dementia, hearing problems and problems with the intestines, eyes, thyroid and skeleton.

Children with Down syndrome receive special education

and related services in a variety of settings that bring them into contact with a range of personnel but they often have fewer opportunities to interact with the environment, which lead to limited movement experience [3]. Studies involving children and adults with Down syndrome have examined the influences

of the Down syndrome cerotype on cerebral development and specialization within the population and its effecting role on motor behavior [4]. For example, while persons with Down syndrome display many general cognitive problems, they also have difficulty performing tasks involving the perception, organization and production of verbal material.

The proficiency of gross motor skills becomes precursor

for children to experience success and enjoyment in organized and unorganized movement activities [5]. Therefore, information from accurate gross motor skills assessment could be useful for physical educators/therapist in designing appropriate instructional experiences for children. Some of children with Down syndrome have difficulties in performing gross motor skills and children with disability are typically having lower health related fitness and motor functional skills compare to the normal children with same ages.

Children with disabilities include children with Down

syndrome often have fewer opportunities to interact with environment, which may lead to limited movement experience. Children who have a wide experience interact with the environment are able to cope or learn more challenging skills or movements [6]. Children with disabilities who possess lower social skills due to fewer opportunities to interact socially with their peers should be provided with intensive instruction and therapy designed to significantly improve their movement skill development.

Gross motor skills were commonly used in play and sport

[7]. They were considered as the building blocks to the acquisition of more advanced movement forms [8, 9, 10]. These skills enabled children to control their bodies, manipulate their environment and display complex skills and movement patterns involved in sports and other recreation activities [11, 12, 13]. Research demonstrated that children who had better proficiency of gross motor skills found it easier to acquire sport skills than their counterparts who experienced deficits [14]. Gross motor skills was considered as a predecessor to more advanced movement skills and specific sport skills [15, 16, 17, 18] and were included in the national content standards in physical education in some countries.

The purpose of this study was to assess the development

of gross motor skill among Down syndrome children with ages 3-10 years in Klang Valley. It also was done to compare the rate of development between boys and girls and to find out

This research was funded by Excellence Fund, Research Management Institute (RMI), Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia

2012 IEEE Symposium on Humanities, Science and Engineering Research

978-1-4673-1310-0/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE 217

the relationship between locomotor and object control skills among the participants.

II. METHODOLOGY A. Sample

There were 30 Down syndrome children in Klang Valley participated in this study (16 boys and 14 girls). The age ranges for all participants were 3-10 years old. B. Instrumentation

Test of Gross Motor Skills Development (TGMD-2) was used to assess the development of gross motor skills among the participants. This test was developed by [19] and it includes two subtests (locomotor skills and object control skills). Locomotor skills tests includes running, galloping, hoping, leaping, horizontal jumping, and sliding while object control skills includes striking, dribbling, kicking, catching, throwing and underhand roll. Specialized equipment that also used in this study were lightweight balls, tennis balls, cones, plastic bat, batting tee, basketball, 4- inch plastic ball, tape, soccer ball, and a wall. C. Data collection

To accommodate the testing, 12 gross motor skill test items were divided into two stations which were arranged in a fixed order. Station 1 included the following gross motor skill test items: Slide, Hop, Throw, Roll, and Catch, whereas the other 7 skill test items (Gallop, Jump, Dribble, Kick, Run, Leap, and Strike) were conducted in Station 2.

The testers were responsible to explain and demonstrate

the gross motor skills to participants. The skill demonstration and verbal description were standardized according to the directions listed in the Test Manual of TGMD-2 [19].

After the demonstration, a practice trial was given for

each participant. Then participants were asked to perform two test trials in turn. In order to assure participants to perform maximally, the participants will be accompanied by the normal person to guide them doing all the test and verbal encouragement to participants were made to make sure they will not out of control. Testers were instructed to use remarks such as “throw hard” or “jump far” to encourage participants. Big, bright, orange-colored cones were used instead of normal cones to indicate the beginning and end of a course for the locomotor skills and to indicate the child’s position for the object control skill. For the object control skills, bright yellow colored balls were used. Furthermore the children were allowed to feel the items, if appropriate, before the test was administered. When necessary, the tester let the child “feel” the required movement and gave additional instruction before the two test trials were administered.

In order to develop a systematic observational strategy,

several elements were considered. Regarding the focus of

observation, testers were informed to observe the performance of participants based on critical features. Therefore, their focus of observation was to identify the presence or absence of behavioral components of the skill which were listed in the TGMD-2. The duration of test in each station lasted about 35 minutes. D. Analysis of data

Descriptive statistics was use to describe the central tendency, variability and frequency of the score. Independent T-Test was used to analyze the score between boys and girls while Pearson correlation was done to investigate the relationship between locomotor and object control skill development among the participants.

III. RESULTS

The data of all participants was obtained from the TGMD-2. A. Ratings of participants

Based on Table 1, most of the participant score are below the “average” level. 40% of the participant are classified in the “average” and “above average” level. Most of the participant (60%) did not achieve at least “average” level of gross motor skill development. There are 17% for “very poor”, 20% for “poor” and 23% for “below average”.

Table I. Descriptive Rating for Participants

Subtest Standard

Score

Gross Motor

Quotient

Descriptive Ratings

Total Percentage (%)

17-20 >130 Very Superior

0 0

15-16 121-130 Superior 0 0 13-14 111-120 Above

Average 3 10

8-12 90-110 Average 9 30 6-7 80-89 Below

Average 7 23.33

4-5 70-79 Poor 6 20 1-3 <70 Very Poor 5 16.67

B. Comparison between boys and girls

There are differences in mean score between boys and girls for the gross motor skill development on both locomotor skills and object control skills. The mean score of locomotor skill for the male participants has shown 5.81 ± 3.83, while the mean score for girls 6.29 ± 2.81. For the object control skill, the mean score for the boys was 9.62 ± 3.53, while the mean score for girls was 9.57 ± 3.94.

2012 IEEE Symposium on Humanities, Science and Engineering Research

218

B. Relationship between Locomotor and Object Control Skills

Table II. Inferential Statistics on Locomotor and Object Control Skills

between Boys and Girls Skills Tests Gender Mean Standard

Deviation P value

Locomotor Boys 5.81 3.83 0.70 Girls 6.29 2.81

Object Control Boys 9.62 3.53 0.96 Girls 9.57 3.94

Based from Table II, there was no significant differences (p=0.70) between boys and girls on the score for locomotor skills and there was no significant differences (p=0.96) between boys and girls on the score for object control skills

Table III.

Relationship Between Locomotor and Object Control Skills among Participants

Skills Tests Mean Standard Deviation

R value

Locomotor 6.03 3.34 0.608 Object Control 9.60 3.63

The mean score (Table III) for locomotor skill was 6.03 ± 3.34, while the mean score for object control was 9.60 ± 3.63. The correlation coefficient was 0.00, (r = 0.608). It showed that there was positive correlation and a strong correlation between locomotor skills and object control skills.

IV. DISCUSSIONS

This research investigated the gross motor skills development among children with Down syndrome in Klang Valley. 30 children Down syndrome in Klang Valley participated in this study. All participants have performed locomotor subtest and object control subtest to determine the performance of their gross muscle in physical activity by using TGMD-2 protocols.

Based on the result of this study, most of the participant did not achieve at least “average” level of gross motor skills development. The findings of this study supported findings from [21] that suggested that the children with Down syndrome initiate and complete movements more slowly and with greater variability than their peers without disabilities of a similar chronological age [21]. Persons with Down syndrome exhibit general information processing difficulties as well as displaying a number of specific cognitive and motor problems when compared to other individuals with disabilities [22].

According to [4] while persons with Down syndrome display many general cognitive problems, they also have difficulty performing tasks involving the perception, organization and production of verbal material. Subsequent research has indicated that individuals with Down syndrome experience difficulties in performing motor tasks based on verbal instruction [22].

This study shows that there are no significant differences between boys and girls on the score for locomotor skills and object control skill. Based from the interviews that were done after data collection, it was found out that all of the subjects involve with physical activities 2-3 times per week. These activities can develop subject’s gross motor skills performance and leads to no significant differences for locomotor and object control skills between boys and girls. The previous study also found out that exercise intervention can leads to improvement on gross motor skills, cardiorespiratory, and muscle strength and endurance for Down syndrome children [20].

If these results are compared to normal population, it shows a contradiction on the findings. Studied by [23] showed boys achieved higher mean scores than the girls in the locomotor and object control skills subtests of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD). Difference in gross motor development between 7 years old boys and girls was also found in other study [24], and [25] reported gender difference in the performance of object control skill subtest of TGMD, stated that boy had better object control skill than their female counterparts. In other studies, [26] found that girls had lower levels of fundamental gross motor skill development than boys. Indication of result differences between boys and girls whom boys’ outperformed on strength and girls better on dynamical balance [27]. However, in comparing normal population between boys and girls, boys were performed more physically active rather than girls [28].

There is a positive and high relationship between

locomotor and object control skills for the overall boys and girls score. This shows that the development of locomotor skills will leads to the development of object control skills. Based on the motor skills performance in TGMD-2, both subtests utilize upper and lower body movement activities. For Down syndrome children, participants who can acquire the movement during locomotion tend to acquire the same capabilities in controlling objects.

V. CONCLUSIONS

This study was conducted to identify the gross motor skills development among Down syndrome children in Klang Valley. Most of the children (60%) were still lack of gross motor skills development. Boys and girls showed no significant differences on the level of gross motor skills development and positive relationship exist between locomotor and object control skill among the participants (elements to be studied in future studies). Proper intervention strategies have to be implemented to improve the gross motor skills development among Down syndrome children in Klang Vallley.

REFERENCES

[1] P. Darrin,. J. Dixon, “Informed Consent Or

Institutionalized Eugenics? How The Medical Profession Encourages Abortion Of Fetuses With

2012 IEEE Symposium on Humanities, Science and Engineering Research

219

Down Syndrome,” Law & Medicine ,Vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1-59, 2008.

[2] S. Meegan, B. Maraj, et al, "Gross Motor Skill

Acquisition in Adolescents with Down Syndrome," Down Syndrome Research and Practice, Vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 75-80, 2006.

[3] C. Wouter, et al, “Movement skill assessment of

typically developing preschool children: A review.” Journal of Sports Science and Medicine , Vol. 8, pp. 154-168, 2009.

[4] B. Maraj, L. Li, et al, "Verbal and Visual Instruction

in Motor Skill Acquisition for Persons with and without Down Syndrome," Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 57-69, 2003.

[5] R. Woodard, P. Surburg, "The Performance of

Fundamental Movement Skills by Elementary School Children with Learning Disabilities," Physical Educator, Vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 198-205, 2001.

[6] R. Schmidt, C. Wrisberg, Motor Learning and

Performance. A Problem-Based Learning Approach, 2nd ed, Human Kinetics, 2000.

[7] B. Gordon, T. Inder, "The Competency Levels of

Third Year Pre-Service Primary Teachers in Performing and Learning Fundamental Motor Skills," Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, Vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 53-66, 2000.

[8] V. Seefeldt, J. Haubenstricker, “Patterns, Phases, or

Stages: An Analytical Model for The Study of Developmental Movement” in J. A. S. Kelso., & J. E. Clark (Eds.), The Development of Movement Control and Co-ordination, , New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 309–318, 1982.

[9] L. Zittel, "Gross Motor Skills in Children with Down

Syndrome: A Guide for Parents and Professionals," Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, Vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 253-255, 2002.

[10] J. Goodway, H. Crowe, et al, "Effects of Motor

Instruction on Fundamental Motor Skill Development," Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, Vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 298-314, 2003.

[11] National Association for Sport and Physical

Education, Moving Into the Future: National Standards for Physical Education, 2nd ed., Reston, VA: Author, 2004.

[12] K. Haywood, N. Getchell, Life Span Motor Development, 3rd ed., Champaign: Human Kinetics, 2001.

[13] A. Burton, D. Miller, Movement Skill Assessment.

Champaign, Edition of book, : Human Kinetics, 1998.

[14] D. Ulrich, S. Wise, "Reliability of Scores Obtained

with The Objectives Based Motor Skill Assessment Instrument," Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, Vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 230-239, 1984.

[15] C. Gabbard, Lifelong Motor Development, 4th ed.,

San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings, 2004. [16] K. Haywood, N. Getchell, Life Span Motor

Development, 4th ed., Champaign: Human Kinetics, 2005.

[17] V. Payne, L. Isaacs, Human Motor Development: A

Lifespan Approach, 5th ed., Boston: McGraw Hill, 2002.

[18] C. A. Coker, Motor Learning and Control for

Practitioners, New York: McGraw Hill, 2004. [19] D. A. Ulrich, Test of gross motor development:

examiner's manual, 2nd ed., Austin, TX: Pro-ed. 2000. [20] C. L. Lewis, P. Fragala, A. Maria, “Effects of

Aerobic Conditioning and Strength Training on a Child with Down Syndrome: A Case Study, Pediatric Physical Therapy, Vol. 17, no. 1, p.p. 30-36, 2005.

[21] J.T. Johnson, J.G. Olley, “Behavioural comparisons

of mongoloid and non-mongoloid retarded persons: A review”, in S. Meegan, B. Maraj, et al, "Gross Motor Skill Acquisition in Adolescents with Down Syndrome," Down Syndrome Research and Practice, Vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 75-80, 2006.

[22] D. Elliott, S. Gray, et al, "Verbal Cueing and Motor

Skill Acquisition for Adults with Down Syndrome," in S. Meegan, B. Maraj, et al, "Gross Motor Skill Acquisition in Adolescents with Down Syndrome," Down Syndrome Research and Practice, Vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 75-80, 2006.

[23] R.J. Woodard, P.R. Surburg, “Fundamental gross

motor skill performance by girls and boys with learning disabilities” Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 867-870, 1997.

[24] D. Cooley, R. Oakman, et al, "Fundamental

Movement Patterns in Tasmanian Primary School

2012 IEEE Symposium on Humanities, Science and Engineering Research

220

Children," Perceptual and Motor skills, Vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 307-316, 1997.

[25] J.D. Goodway, M.E. Rudisill, “Perceived physical

competence and actual motor skill competence of African American preschool children” Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, Vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 314-326. 1997.

[26] L. Sanders, L. Kidman, “Can primary school children

perform fundamental motor skills?” Journal of

Physical Education New Zealand, Vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 11-13. 1998.

[27] M. Shala, “Assessing gross motor skills of Kosovar

preschool children,” Early Child Development and Care , Vol. 179, no. 7), pp. 969-976, 2009.

[28] S. Jandric, “Differences between boys and girls in

term of physical activity,” Journal of Physical Eduaction and Sport , Vol. 8, no.1, pp. 1-7, 2010

2012 IEEE Symposium on Humanities, Science and Engineering Research

221