2018
DOI: 10.12965/jer.1836046.023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Motor proficiency differences among students with intellectual disabilities, autism, and developmental disability

Abstract: There is considerable overlap in the manifestations of intellectual disability, autism, and developmental disability. We aimed to determine whether students with such disabilities have differences in their motor proficiency. We compared the motor proficiency of 82 students (age, 11 to 20 years) with different severities of intellectual disability (borderline, 11 students; mild, 27 students; moderate, 19 students), developmental disability (15 students), or autism (10 students). The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
29
0
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
3
29
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…A number of studies have assessed gross motor competence in children with ID and/or ASC. 45–47 Despite a growth in research in these populations over the last decade, studies have used different assessment tools such as the TGMD-2 (eg, 48 49 ) TGMD-3 (eg, 50 ) or the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-2 (BOTMP-2: for example, 51 ) which means that the results are not directly comparable and hinders broader interpretations of gross motor competence levels. It also highlights that there has been difficulty deciding on an assessment tool which may be most appropriate for use with children with ID and/or ASC, as these assessment tools were not originally designed for use with these populations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A number of studies have assessed gross motor competence in children with ID and/or ASC. 45–47 Despite a growth in research in these populations over the last decade, studies have used different assessment tools such as the TGMD-2 (eg, 48 49 ) TGMD-3 (eg, 50 ) or the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-2 (BOTMP-2: for example, 51 ) which means that the results are not directly comparable and hinders broader interpretations of gross motor competence levels. It also highlights that there has been difficulty deciding on an assessment tool which may be most appropriate for use with children with ID and/or ASC, as these assessment tools were not originally designed for use with these populations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our sample, prevalence of motor proficiency was 26.1%, lower than other studies who found 45.9% (Suhaili et al . 2019) and 38.9% (Jeoung 2018). Some of these differences can be explained the use of distinct instruments to evaluate motor proficiency as well as differences in study sampling methods, and participants characteristic such as severity of ID.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Permasalahan ini diharapkan mitra untuk menjadi bahan pengembangan dengan memperbesar luas penampang kepala bat tenis meja dari ukuran biasanya sehingga diharapkan dapat meningkatkan persentase perkenaan bola pada bat pemukul. Anak-anak dengan kelainan perkembangan dan cacat mental memiliki keterampilan motorik halus yang lebih buruk (Jeoung, 2018), Seperti contohnya pada siswa dengan autisme menunjukkan keterlambatan gerak (Bhat, Landa, & Galloway, 2011;Liu & Breslin, 2013;MacDonald, Lord, & Ulrich, 2014;Staples & Reid, 2010;Martika, 2020), belum ada penjelasan yang membedakan secara spesifik untuk siswa dengan disabilitas gerak atau siswa dalam pendidikan jasmani adaptif sehingga pengembangan fasilitas dan peralatan memadai untuk melayani siswa menjadi tantangan tersendiri untuk dikembangkan (Morley, Bailey, Tan, & Cooke, 2005).…”
Section: Pendahuluanunclassified