Do Children Accurately Estimate Their Performance of Fundamental Movement Skills?

Almeida, Gabriela; Luz, Carlos; Martins, Rui; Cordovil, Rita

doi:10.1123/jmld.2016-0030

Cited by 14 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the children underestimated their jumping capabilities (z = -3.092, p = .002, r = -.446). This latter finding is consistent with the results of Prieske et al [ 6 ] and Jongeneel et al ([ 4 ] but see [ 18 – 19 ]), and is important for the later analysis of whether children crossed over gaps that are challenging for them. Indeed, if we assume that playing children select gaps based on their estimated action capabilities, it implies that we have to use the perceived maximum jumping distance to determine whether children opt for gaps that are challenging for them.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Gap-crossing behavior in a standardized and a nonstandardized jumping stone configuration

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last years, the omnipresent standardization of playgrounds—the distances between, for example, jumping stones tend to be equal—has been criticized by both scientists and architects. First, it has been argued that standardization fails to do justice to the variability in the children’s action capabilities. Second, it might simplify play in that children repetitively cross over the same distance and, thus, do not have to worry about their movements anymore. In the present study we examined the gap-crossing behavior of children in both a standardized and a nonstandardized jumping stone configuration. Children, between 5 and 10 years of age, were to play in each configuration for two minutes. No significant differences between the configurations were found in the number of gaps the children crossed and the percentage of jumps (ps>0.05). However, more children crossed a gap that they perceived as challenging (i.e. gap width close to their estimated maximum jumping distance) in the nonstandardized configuration than in the standardized one. Interestingly, significant differences were found in variables reflecting the children’s action preparation—the variation in both the time on a jumping stone and the numbers of steps on it was bigger in the nonstandardized playground than in the standardized one (ps<0.05). The implications of these findings are discussed for both the design of playgrounds and the academic discussions about them.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Gap-crossing behavior in a standardized and a nonstandardized jumping stone configuration

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Posterior computation was performed to produce the following outcomes: Algebraic-error (Real performance–Estimation), Absolute-error (|Algebraic-error|), Absolute-percent-error (|1 –Estimation/Real performance| x 100) and Error-tendency which concerns the error direction (overestimation: Real<Estimated vs . underestimation: Real>Estimated) [ 20 ]. These computed variables measure the error between the real action boundary and the precepted action boundary, which is the judgment bias magnitude and respective direction.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stepping-forward affordance perception test cut-offs: Red-flags to identify community-dwelling older adults at high risk of falling and of recurrent falling

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stepping-forward affordance perception test (SF-APT) fills an important gap within the screening of falls risk factors by considering the perception of affordances. The test showed to be a valid instrument for community-dwelling older adults falls risk assessment. The present study aimed to distinguish and test the key outcomes of the SF-APT usable for falls risk assessment in community-dwelling older adults to determine the respective cutoffs. This cross-sectional study enrolled 347 participants (73.1 ± 6.2 years; non-fallers: 57.9%; fallers: 42.1%; recurrent-fallers: 17.9%). Falls occurrence and SF-APT outcomes were assessed. Analyses were performed using multivariate binary logistic regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC). The area under the ROC curve was computed (AUC) for each built model explaining falling or recurrent falling. Results distinguished the Estimated stepping-forward, and Absolute-error in interaction with Error-tendency as the SF-APT key outcomes for falls risk assessment [AUC falling : 0.665 (CI 95%: 0.608-0.723); AUC falling recurrently : 0.728 (CI 95%: 0.655-0.797)]. Computed cut-offs' analysis showed that (i) a boundary stepping-forward estimation >58 cm plus an underestimation bias >5 cm (>42 nd percentile) avoid older adults to be recurrent-fallers, and (ii) a boundary stepping-forward estimation >62 cm plus an underestimation bias >6 cm (>54 th percentile) avoid older adults to be fallers. In conclusion, results suggest that SF-APT is a valuable tool for falls risk assessment in community-dwelling older adults. Interventions targeting the prevention of falls should consider the above key outcomes and the respective cutoffs as alert red-flags.

show abstract

“…The following outcomes were computed from the distances collected by SF-APT regarding each participant: estimated stepping-forward distance (cm), real stepping-forward distance (cm), algebraic error (difference between real and estimated distances), absolute error (|algebraic error|), absolute percent error (|1–estimated/real performance| x 100), and error tendency frequencies concerning algebraic error (overestimation: real < estimated; underestimation: real > estimated) [22]. These variables measure the error or bias magnitude.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and construct validity of the stepping-forward affordance perception test for fall risk assessment in community-dwelling older adults

Almeida¹,

Bravo²,

Folgado³

et al. 2019

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thus far, few studies have examined the estimation and actual performance of locomotor ability in older adults. To our knowledge, there are no studies examining the relationship between stepping-forward estimation versus ability and fall occurrence. The aim of this study was to develop and assess the reliability and validity of a new test for fall risk assessment in community-dwelling older adults. In total, 347 participants (73.1 ± 6.2 years; 266 women) were assessed for their perception of maximum distance for the stepping-forward and action boundary. The test was developed following the existing literature and expert opinions. The task showed strong internal consistency. Intraclass correlation ranged from 0.99 to 1 for intrarater agreement and from 0.83 to 0.97 for interrater agreement. Multivariate binary regression analysis models revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.665 (95% CI: 0.608–0.723) for fallers and 0.728 (95% CI: 0.655–0.797) for recurrent fallers. The stepping-forward affordance perception test (SF-APT) was demonstrated to be accurate, reliable and valid for fall risk assessment. The results showed that a large estimated stepping-forward associated with an underestimated absolute error works as a protective mechanism for fallers and recurrent fallers in community-dwelling older adults. SF-APT is safe, quick, easy to administer, well accepted and reproducible for application in community or clinical settings by either clinical or nonclinical care professionals.

show abstract

Do Children Accurately Estimate Their Performance of Fundamental Movement Skills?

Cited by 14 publications

References 8 publications

Gap-crossing behavior in a standardized and a nonstandardized jumping stone configuration

Gap-crossing behavior in a standardized and a nonstandardized jumping stone configuration

Stepping-forward affordance perception test cut-offs: Red-flags to identify community-dwelling older adults at high risk of falling and of recurrent falling

Reliability and construct validity of the stepping-forward affordance perception test for fall risk assessment in community-dwelling older adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About