Longitudinal Locomotor Competence and Body Mass Index Across Self-Reported Gender and Vision Level for Youth With Visual Impairments: A 3-Year Investigation

Abstract

Youth with visual impairments are more likely to be overweight than peers without visual impairments and often struggle with their locomotor skills. Locomotor development can combat unhealthy body weight statuses by supporting physical activity behaviors. There are no longitudinal investigations concerning the locomotor skill and body mass index (BMI) developmental trajectories of youth with visual impairments. The purpose of this study was to examine the 3-year developmental trajectory of the locomotor skills and BMI of youth with visual impairments including differential effects of self-reported gender and degree of vision. Participants (N = 34, Mage = 11.75 years, 47% female) showed severely delayed and arrested locomotor development with increases in BMI across 3 years regardless of self-reported gender or degree of vision. Participants failed to breech a proficiency barrier of motor competence to combat against increases in BMI across time. Additional longitudinal inquiries are needed.

Standing Long Jump Performance in Youth with Visual Impairments: A Multidimensional Examination

“…As previously discussed, this outcome is likely due to the fact that vision can assist with temporo-spatial accuracy during motor skill performance (e.g., visuo-motor integration). Interestingly, the mixed results echo the literature as vision level has been shown to [45] and not to [58] impact motor skill performance in youth with VI. The current results emphasize that vision level may be a differential predictor of SLJ performance (i.e., its predictiveness is not constant, it depends what assessment/measurement is being used).…”

“…As the average age of the sample was ≈13 years (M = 12.98), participants were (overall) only earning 56% or 63% of the possible eight points using mean- and median-based measures of central tendency, respectively (M = 4.51, SD = 2.29, Mdn = 5, MAD = 1.48). This finding was not surprising as youth with VI have been shown to have diminished TGMD-3 performance in both cross-sectional [ 29 , 57 ] and longitudinal investigations [ 58 ].…”

“…While the default assumption may be that having a VI (in and of itself) would be the primary culprit of such outcomes (i.e., VI = primary structural constraint), such results were not endorsed within the current study. In fact, while a complex interaction of personal, environmental, and social factors influence motor skill performance [58,77], it is likely that socio-environmental constraints are some of the most impactful determinants of motor skill performance [81], physical activity [82], and health [83] in youth with VI. While these data cannot corroborate that socio-environmental factors were the motive force behind the inferior SLJ scores, future research should investigate such hypotheses especially given that, for example, modifiable environmental factors have been found to influence motor skill performance in younger children without VI [84].…”

Meeting physical activity and screen time among Colombian adolescents with or without sensory‐related problems

“…First, engagement in certain types of PA such as dancing, games, and sports are known to be challenging for youths with visual‐ and hearing‐related problems, which depends strongly on sensory input and communication abilities 17,18 . Second, those with visual impairments do not seem to overcome the barrier of motor competence, 19 which might affect to PA level 20 . Third, another plausible reason could be fear of going outside, due to falling or suffering accidents 8 .…”

Camp Abilities – an educational sports camp for children and youth with visual impairment: A systematic review

“…In five studies, multiple camps were combined (between 2 and 7 camps), resulting in larger sample sizes (Σ = 569 participants, x − = 81 participants/article). Brian, Starrett, Pennell, Haibach-Beach, Gilbert et al (2021) used a sample of 138 participants but did not mention how many camps were involved. Table 1 presents the characteristics of studies.…”