Volume 10 -
MEJDS (2020) 10: 39 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Esmaeelzadeh Azad S, Ghasemi A, Molanorouzi K, Vaez Mousavi M. Family's socio-economic status on motor development of children: structure modeling with intermediation of mother's physical activity. MEJDS 2020; 10 :39-39
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1297-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1297-en.html
1- Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University
2- Department of physical Education and Sport Science, Science & Research Branch, Islamic Azad University
3- Department of Sport Science, Imam Hossein University
2- Department of physical Education and Sport Science, Science & Research Branch, Islamic Azad University
3- Department of Sport Science, Imam Hossein University
Abstract: (2648 Views)
Background & Objective: Childhood is a critical period for motor development. The developmental potentials of preschool aged children are basic for many adult skills. The researchers showed that the motor development of preschool aged children is not pleasant. Several hereditary and environmental factors can affect children's motor development, but the environmental factors are important than hereditary elements, because they are flexible and changeable. The socioeconomic status of families and mothers are important between other environment factors because children have long and close dependence to their families. The variable world technology leads to poverty movements that can danger for physical health of individuals, families, and society or exist the cognitive or socioemotional problems. These variables can be limiter or provider. It means that the families or parents may have a supportive and modelling role or preventer. This research investigated children's motor development status and studied the families and parent effects on preschool aged children's motor development.
Methods: The methodology of this research was descriptive–correlation (structural equation modeling). The participants were 150 (4–year–old: n=50, 5–year–old: n=50, 6–year–old: n=50) children with 4–6 aged (65.56±8.55 month old) and their mothers (34.38±5.81 years old) that lived in Sarab city in Eastern Azerbaijan province (Northwest of Iran), and chosen by cluster sampling. The equipment were demographic questionnaire (age, high, width of children and the age of mothers), Godratnama socioeconomic questionnaire (with subscales of income, education, economic category, and home), short form of international physical activity (IPAQ–sf) questionnaire (three levels of inactive, sufficient mobility, and much mobility measured by the cost of expenditure energy or Meets) and short form of the second edition of motor proficiency of Bruininks–Oseretsky (BOT2–Sf) test (with subscales of bilateral coordination, balance, speed running and agility, strength, manual dexterity, upper limb coordination, fine motor integration, fine motor precision). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of Godratnama questionnaire was 0.72, the test–retests reliability coefficient of BOT2–Sf and IPAQ–Sf were 0.809, and 0.86. The entrance criterion was no apparent disorders of vision, hearing, physical, motor, and behavior of mothers and children. The mothers' filled written consent and all three questionnaires, then the children participated in motor proficiency test. All data analyzed by SPSS ver.16 and Smart PLS3 software.
Results: The motor development of children was lower than average (28.85±11.156). The higher than seventy values of Bruninks test showed the most higher than average of motor development status, but it was lower than thirty value express and the most lower than average of motor development status. The socioeconomic status of families had a positive and significant effect on motor development of children (β=0.425, p<0.0001), but had not positive and significant effect on mother's physical activity (β=0.076, p=0.348). In addition, the mother's physical activity had significant effect on motor development of children (β=0.204, p=0.011). It means that direct effect of socioeconomic status on motor development of children was significant, but non–direct effect of it was not (by mediation of mothers physical activity) significant.
Conclusion: The status of children's motor development was not optimal. The families' socioeconomic status was as a stimulus for children's motor development, but as a preventive for mothers' physical activity, and the mother's physical activities had a facilitator role on motor development of children. Then it seems that the financial or time support of families or modelling of mothers can facilitate the motor development of children.
Methods: The methodology of this research was descriptive–correlation (structural equation modeling). The participants were 150 (4–year–old: n=50, 5–year–old: n=50, 6–year–old: n=50) children with 4–6 aged (65.56±8.55 month old) and their mothers (34.38±5.81 years old) that lived in Sarab city in Eastern Azerbaijan province (Northwest of Iran), and chosen by cluster sampling. The equipment were demographic questionnaire (age, high, width of children and the age of mothers), Godratnama socioeconomic questionnaire (with subscales of income, education, economic category, and home), short form of international physical activity (IPAQ–sf) questionnaire (three levels of inactive, sufficient mobility, and much mobility measured by the cost of expenditure energy or Meets) and short form of the second edition of motor proficiency of Bruininks–Oseretsky (BOT2–Sf) test (with subscales of bilateral coordination, balance, speed running and agility, strength, manual dexterity, upper limb coordination, fine motor integration, fine motor precision). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of Godratnama questionnaire was 0.72, the test–retests reliability coefficient of BOT2–Sf and IPAQ–Sf were 0.809, and 0.86. The entrance criterion was no apparent disorders of vision, hearing, physical, motor, and behavior of mothers and children. The mothers' filled written consent and all three questionnaires, then the children participated in motor proficiency test. All data analyzed by SPSS ver.16 and Smart PLS3 software.
Results: The motor development of children was lower than average (28.85±11.156). The higher than seventy values of Bruninks test showed the most higher than average of motor development status, but it was lower than thirty value express and the most lower than average of motor development status. The socioeconomic status of families had a positive and significant effect on motor development of children (β=0.425, p<0.0001), but had not positive and significant effect on mother's physical activity (β=0.076, p=0.348). In addition, the mother's physical activity had significant effect on motor development of children (β=0.204, p=0.011). It means that direct effect of socioeconomic status on motor development of children was significant, but non–direct effect of it was not (by mediation of mothers physical activity) significant.
Conclusion: The status of children's motor development was not optimal. The families' socioeconomic status was as a stimulus for children's motor development, but as a preventive for mothers' physical activity, and the mother's physical activities had a facilitator role on motor development of children. Then it seems that the financial or time support of families or modelling of mothers can facilitate the motor development of children.
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
Social Sciences
References
1. Cotrim JR, Lemos AG, Néri Junior JE, Barela JA. Desenvolvimento de habilidades motoras fundamentais em crianças com diferentes contextos escolares. R Educ Fís UEM. 2011;22(4):523–33. [Portuguese] [DOI]
2. Jahadian Sarvestani H, Shafienia P, Zarghami M. The Comparison of Motor Development in 3-6-Year-Old Children from Ahvaz with Denver Developmental Screening Test II. Journal of Motor Learning and Movement. 2013;5(3):135–49. [Persian] [DOI]
3. Puciato D, Mynarski W, Rozpara M, Borysiuk Z, Szyguła R. Motor development of children and adolescents aged 8-16 years in view of their somatic build and objective quality of life of their families. J Hum Kinet. 2011;28:45–53. [DOI]
4. Malina RM, Bouchard C, Bar-Or O. Growth, Maturation, and Physical Activity. Bahram A, Khalaji H. (Persian translator). Tehran: Omid Danesh Pub; 2002, pp:612.
5. Gallahue DL, Ozmun JC. Understanding Motor Development: Infants, Children, Adolescents, Adults. Hemayat Talab R, Movahedi AR, Farsi AR, Fooladian J. (Persian translator). Tehran: Elm o Harekat Pub; 2006, pp:121.
6. Engle PL, Black MM, Behrman JR, Cabral de Mello M, Gertler PJ, Kapiriri L, et al. Strategies to avoid the loss of developmental potential in more than 200 million children in the developing world. Lancet. 2007;369(9557):229–42. [DOI]
7. Barnett LM, Lai SK, Veldman SLC, Hardy LL, Cliff DP, Morgan PJ, et al. Correlates of Gross Motor Competence in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2016;46(11):1663–88. [DOI]
8. Ward DS, Saunders RP, Pate RR. Physical Activity Interventions in Children and Adolescents. Sheikh M. (Persian translator). Tehran: Varzesh Publication; 2014, pp:128–30.
9. Hesketh KR, O’Malley C, Paes VM, Moore H, Summerbell C, Ong KK, et al. Determinants of Change in Physical Activity in Children 0–6 years of Age: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Literature. Sports Med. 2017;47(7):1349–74. [DOI]
10. Ghodratnama A, Heidarinejad S, Davoodi I. The relationship between socio – economic status and the rate of physical activity in Shahid Chamran university students of Ahwaz. J Sport Management. 2013;5(16):5–20. [Persian] [DOI]
11. Morley D, Till K, Ogilvie P, Turner G. Influences of gender and socioeconomic status on the motor proficiency of children in the UK. Hum Mov Sci. 2015;44:150–6. [DOI]
12. Qaraie E. Etebar, payaie va hanjaryabi form kootah azmoon tabahor harekati Bruininks–Oseretsky virayesh 2 dar koodakan pishdabestani Tehran [Validity, stability, and standardization of short form of motor proficiency test, Bruininks- Oseretsky 2 in Tehran preschool children] [Ph.D dissertion]. [Tehran, Iran]: Faculty of Literature, Humanities and Social Sciences , Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch; 2017, pp:130. [Persian]
13. Oyeyemi AL, Oyeyemi AY, Adegoke BO, Oyetoke FO, Aliyu HN, Aliyu SU, et al. The Short International Physical Activity Questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation, validation and reliability of the Hausa language version in Nigeria. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:156. [DOI]
14. BashiriMoosavi F, Farmanbar R, Taghdisi M, AtrkarRoshan Z. Level of physical activity among girl high school students in Tarom county and relevant factors. Iranian Journal of Health Education and Health Promotion. 2015;3(2):133–40. [Persian] [Article]
15. Davari A, Rezazadeh A. Structural Equation Modeling with PLS. Tehran: Iranian Student Book Agency; 2013, pp:98. [Persian]
16. Piko BF, Keresztes N. Sociodemographic and socioeconomic variations in leisure time physical activity in a sample of Hungarian youth. Int J Public Health. 2008;53(6):306–10. [DOI]
17. Brettschneider WD, Naul R. Study on young people’s lifestyles and sedentariness and the role of sport in the context of education and as a means of restoring the balance. Paderborn: Univerity of Paderborn; 2004.
18. Hilpert M, Brockmeier K, Dordel S, Koch B, Weiß V, Ferrari N, et al. Sociocultural influence on obesity and lifestyle in children: a study of daily activities, leisure time behavior, motor skills, and weight status. Obes Facts. 2017;10(3):168–78. [DOI]
19. Kakebeeke TH, Zysset AE, Messerli-Bürgy N, Chaouch A, Stülb K, Leeger-Aschmann CS, et al. Impact of age, sex, socioeconomic status, and physical activity on associated movements and motor speed in preschool children. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2018;40(1):95–106. [DOI]
20. Schoeppe S, Liersch S, Röbl M, Krauth C, Walter U. Mothers and Fathers Both Matter: The Positive Influence of Parental Physical Activity Modelling on Children’s Leisure-Time Physical Activity. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2016;28(3):466–72. [DOI]
21. Cleland V, Venn A, Fryer J, Dwyer T, Blizzard L. Parental exercise is associated with Australian children’s extracurricular sports participation and cardiorespiratory fitness: A cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2005;2(1):3. [DOI]
22. Timperio AF, van Stralen MM, Brug J, Bere E, Chinapaw MJM, De Bourdeaudhuij I, et al. Direct and indirect associations between the family physical activity environment and sports participation among 10-12 year-old European children: testing the EnRG framework in the ENERGY project. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:15. [DOI]
23. Garriguet D, Colley R, Bushnik T. Parent-Child association in physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Health Rep. 2017;28(6):3–11.
24. Allen MS, Vella SA, Laborde S. Sport participation, screen time, and personality trait development during childhood. Br J Dev Psychol. 2015;33(3):375–90. [DOI]
25. Joseph RP, Ainsworth BE, Keller C, Dodgson JE. Barriers to physical activity among African American women: An integrative review of the literature. Women Health. 2015;55(6):679–99. [DOI]
26. Federico B, Falese L, Marandola D, Capelli G. Socioeconomic differences in sport and physical activity among Italian adults. J Sports Sci. 2013;31(4):451–8. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
