Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. STUDENTS WITH SIGNIFICANT MOTOR SKILL IMPAIRMENT - A LONGITUDINAL STUDY - A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education, Department of Education Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand Lynne Donaldson 1994 ABSTRACT This is a four year follow-up study of a group of students who were originally tested in the 1982 South Auckland Perceptual Motor Dysfunction Survey in Hamilton. All those students identified at the primary school standard three level as having significantly impaired motor skills (clumsy), and a selected group of students who were just above the level of significant impairment, were traced for retesting in order to examine the motor skill development of these students. In all 55 students were retested. Thirty-eight of the 62 students (61 %) identified with significant impaired motor skills in 1982 were retraced in the Hamilton area in 1986. Seventeen of 23 students selected (74%) from the group of students whose motor skills were just above the level of impairment were also retraced. This retesting percentage result compares favourably with other related longitudinal studies. The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency was used to test students at both the standard three and form three levels. This is a comprehensive and reliable test of motor skills. Such an extensive motor skills testing programme has not to the writer's knowledge been undertaken in the context of a longitudinal study before. Seventy-three percent (73%) of those students ( two out of every three students) with significantly impaired motor skills in 1982 continued to have motor skill problems at the form three level in 1986. Gross motor skills (Balance, Bilateral Co-ordination, Strength, and Running Speed and Agility) were more impaired than fine motor skills with Balance subtest skills showing the greatest degree of impairment. Thirty-five percent of those students (35%) whose motor skills just were just above the level of significant impairment at the standard three level showed a deterioration in their motor skills over the four years to be classified as having significantly impaired motor skills in 1986. The above results and a calculation of the incidence of students with significantly impaired motor skills at both the standard three and form three levels do not support a maturational effect on motor skill development. This study briefly explored whether student participation in sport and recreation pursuits influenced the development of motor skills. No direct correlation was found. Schools were however identified as significant providers of sport and recreation opportunities for the students tested. The results of this times series research design approach were able to be compared to the cross-sectional design of the 1982 South Auckland Perceptual Motor Dysfunction Survey as means of determining the incidence level of students with significant motor skill problems and identifying the motor skill characteristics of such students. Differences are evident from these approaches and are discussed briefly. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Without the insight of the South Auckland Physical Education Council in 1982 neither the South Auckland Perceptual Motor Dysfunction Survey nor this longitudinal study would have been possible. Through their initiative and the professional guidance and support of Mr J. R. Hughes (Inspector Physical Education, Education Department) important benchmarks in Physical Education have been achieved in these research studies. I wish to thank Patricia Eyre (nee Maurice) and Joy Russell for their valuable assistance in testing the students. Their help meant that the testing was completed efficiently and smoothly with a minimum of disruption to the schools involved. A special thanks to the Principal, staff and pupils at all the schools involved in the survey. Without their co-operation and interest in this research work the finding and retesting of the students would not have been possible. The write-up of this research work has been delayed several years because of a car accident involving the writer at the completion of the testing programme, and the recovery necessary as a result of this. With the support of friends, colleagues and family throughout, and the professional support of Mr J. R. Hughes and the Education Department at Massey University, this study has been able to be completed. Support was received from the Statistics Department, the New Zealand Crippled Children Society Inc. and the New Zealand Association of Health Physical Education and Recreation Inc. to carry out this research. This support I trust has been justified by the results and discussion generated by this study and will be further justified in the future by the consideration and adoption of new policy and practise in Physical Education to better meet the needs of students who have difficulties in learning and developing fundamental physical motor skills. i Special thanks is extended to Associate Professor Mr Brian Shaw my project supervisor in the Education Department at Massey University for his continued guidance and patience. Thanks are also extended to Associate Professor Mr Richard Harker for his guidance with the analysis of computer results, and to Ms Diana Bloor for her assistance in analysing the data. Lynne Donaldson January 1994 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS List of Figures List of Tables CHAPTER ONE : CHAPTER TWO : Definition of Terms INTRODUCTION THE PROBLEM Theoretical Framework for the Proposed Study Research Design Is Clumsiness a Maturational Factor? Where Do the Impaired Fit into the Picture Statement of the Problem - Hypotheses CHAPTER THREE : REVIEW OF LITERATURE Incidence of Motor Skill Impairment Longitudinal Studies Motor Skill Characteristics of Significantly Impaired Research in Cognate Areas Validity of Test Mobility/Loss of Test Populations Teacher Perception of Impairment Motor Skill Competence and Participation in Sport Validity of Related Literature Contribution this Study Makes to the Literature CHAPTER FOUR : METHODOLOGY Research Population Test Procedures Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency Questionnaire Pilot Studies Data Collection Treatment of Data Delimitation and Limitations of the Study Page vi . vii 1 3 4 6 6 8 11 14 17 17 24 30 34 36 38 39 40 41 43 43 45 45 48 48 49 50 53 CHAPTER FIVE : RES UL TS AND DISCUSSION 56 Research Sample Matters 59 Students Tested 59 Absenteeism 61 Mobility of Test Population 61 Age/Sex of Groups 62 Unreliable Data 64 Are Those Retested in 1986 Representative of 1982 Tested Groups? 65 Retested 1982 Low Performance Group 68 Stanine Level Improvement 69 Gross and Fine Motor Skill Characteristics 72 Motor Skill Subtest Characteristics 77 Are Things Really Worse in 1986? 83 Comparison Between'Significant lmprovers' and 'Non-lmprovers' 86 Retested 1982 Stanine 1 Group 91 Stanine Level Improvement 92 Gross and Fine Motor Skill Characteristics 92 Motor Skill Subtest Characteristics 95 Are Things Really Worse in 1986? 103 Numbers Found for Retesting 105 Retested 1982 Stanine 4 Group 107 Stanine Level Improvement/Deterioration 108 Gross and Fine Motor Skill Characteristics 109 Comparison Between 'Stanine 4 Plus' and 'Stanine 4 Regressors' Group 1986 Low Performance Group Stanine Levels Gross and Fine Motor Skill Characteristics Motor Skill Subtest Characteristics Involvement in Sport and Recreation Activities Retested 1982 Low Performance Group Stanine 1 Group 111 116 117 117 118 125 126 133 Retested Stanine 4 Group Overall Comments 1982 Special Class Students Projection and Comparison of Study Results Projection of 1986 Test Results Comparison of Cross-sectional and Time Series Approach to Determination of Incidence of Significant Motor Skill Impairment Summary of Findings CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIXES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F BIBLIOGRAPHY 134 138 140 144 145 147 151 157 161 162 163 165 166 167 169 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 LIST OF FIGURES Structure of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency Percentage Frequency of Stanine Scores for a Normally Distributed Population Diagrammatic Presentation of Study Groups 47 51 57 vi vii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Students Selected For Testing 1986 60 Table 2 Age and Sex of the Low Performance Group and the Stanine 4 Group 63 Table 3 Retested 1982 Low Performance Group Distribution by Lowest Motor Composite Stanine Scores and by Sex in 1982/1986 70 Table4 Stanine Progress of the Retested 1982 Low Performance Group When Compared By Lowest Stanine Composite Scores in 1982/1986 71 Table 5 Changes in Gross and Fine Motor Skill Characteristics of the Retested 1982 Low Performance Group 1982/1986 75 Table 6 Range and Average Degree of Impairment of Subtest Motor Skills for the Retested 1982 Low Performance Group 1982/1986 79 Table 7 Degree of Impairment of Subtest Motor Skills for Retested 1982 Low Performance Group 1982/1986 82 Table 8 Average Degree of Impairment Scores as aPercentage of Average Chronological Age for Subtest Motor Skills of the Retested 1982 Low Performance Group 1982/1986 84 Table 9 Range and Average Degree of Impairment of Subtest Motor Skills for the Retested 1982 Low Performance Group 'Significant lmprovers' and 'Non-lmprovers' 87 Table 10 Average Degree of Impairment Scores as a Percentage of Average Chronological Age for Subtest Motor Skills of the Retested 1982 Low Performance Group 'Significant lmprovers' and 'Non-lmprovers' 90 Table 11 Gross and Fine Motor Skill Characteristics of Retested 1982 Stanine 1 Group 94 Table 12 Range and Average Degree of Impairment of Subtest Motor Skills For the Retested 1982 Stanine 1 Group 1982/1986 98 Table 13 Degree of Impairment of Subtest Motor Skills for Retested 1982 Stanine 1 Group 1982/1986 101 viii Table 14 Degree of Impairment as a Percentage of Average Chronological Age For Subtest Motor Skills of the Retested 1982 Stanine 1 Group 1982/1986 104 Table 15 Retested 1982 Stanine 4 Group Distribution by Lowest Motor Composite Stanine Score and by Sex 1982/1986 108 Table 16 Changes in Gross and Fine Motor Skill Characteristics of the Retested Stanine 4 Group from 1982 to 1982 110 Table 17 Range and Average Degree of Impairment of Subtest Motor Skills for the Retested 1982 Stanine 4 Plus' Group and the 'Stanine 4 Regressors' 112 Table 18 Degree of Impairment as a Percentage of Average Chronological Age for Subtest Motor Skills of the Retested 1982 'Stanine 4 Plus' Group and the 'Stanine 4 Regressors' 115 Table 19 1986 Low Performance Group Distribution By Lowest Motor Composite Stanine Score and by Sex 117 Table 20 Changes in Gross and Fine Motor Skill Characteristics of the 1986 Low Performance Group Between 1982 and 1986 119 Table 21 Range and Average Degree of Impairment of Subtest Motor Skills for the 1986 Low Performance Group 120 Table 22 Degree of Impairment of Subtest Motor Skills for the 1986 Low Performance Group 123 Table 23 Average Degree of Impairment Scores as a Percentage of Average Chronological Age for Subtest Motor Skills of the 1986 Low Performance Group 124 Table 24 Retested 1982 Low Performance Group Involvement in Sport and Recreation Activities 128 Table 25 Number of Sport and Recreation Activities Triedby Retested 1982 Low Performance Group Between 1982 and 1986 129 Table 26 Most Number of Years Involved in Same Activity By Retested 1982 Low Performance Group 131 Table 27 Retested 1982 Stanine 4 Group Involvement in Sport and Recreation Activities 135 Table 28 Number of Sport and Recreation Activities Tried By Retested 1982 Stanine 4 Group between 1982 and 1986 136 Table 29 Most Number of Years Involved in Same Activity By Retested Stanine 4 Group 137 Table 30 1982 'Special Class' Student Distribution by Lowest Motor Composite Stanine Score 141 Table 31 Retesting of 'Special Class' Students in 1986 142 Table 32 Number Tested/Percentage in Low Performance Group of 1982 South Auckland Perceptual Motor Dysfunction Survey 14 7 Table 33 Degree of Impairment for the Primary, Intermediate, and Secondary School Levels at Stanine 3, Stanine 2 and Stanine 1 - 1982 South Auckland Perceptual Motor Dysfunction Survey 164 Table 34 Gross and Fine Motor Skill Characteristics of the Retested 1982 Low Performance Group as a Percentage by Sex 166 Table 35 Degree of Impairment for Subtest Motor Skills of the Retested 1982 Low Performance Group in 1982 167 Table 36 Degree of Impairment for Subtest Motor Skills of the Retested 1982 Low Performance Group in 1986 168 ix CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION Little research has been carried out in the area of physical education in New Zealand either to identify areas of significant achievement, to identify areas where there is significant impairment or concern among school students, or to support the findings of overseas research studies in this field. There are few bench-marks available in New Zealand to indicate that past and current physical education syllabuses, and the teaching practices of teachers have contributed adequately to the development of basic motor skills of students in our schools. If physical education teachers are to convince others in the education arena that what they do is effective and vital to the overall development of growing students, then they must undertake or have access to research that demonstrates the need for physical education in the school syllabus, and which shows how effective they are in providing what is needed. The South Auckland Perceptual Motor Dysfunction Survey which was initiated by the South Auckland Physical Education Council in 1982, is one such significant piece of New Zealand physical education research (Donaldson and Maurice 1983). The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of students in Hamilton schools with significantly impaired motor skills for their age, and hence to determine the need for some form of adapted physical education programmes in Hamilton schools. This research study showed an incidence level of 18.6% of primary school students and 21.3% of students at the secondary level with significantly impaired motor skills. These results provided evidence, for the first time, that motor skill problems of some magnitude existed in New Zealand schools. It is likely a similar incidence of motor skill impairment, as was found in the Hamilton area, exists in schools throughout New Zealand (Donaldson and Maurice, 1983). In the New Zealand education system little or nothing is currently being offered to help students with significantly impaired motor skills and there is increasing concern in some schools about what happens to these students. Some believe that as these students mature their motor skills will naturally improve 1 without specific help. Others believe that only through well planned intervention programmes can these students make significant motor skill improvement. To date there have been few longitudinal studies undertaken worldwide to give support to either approach. This current research work is a four year follow-up study of those primary school students identified in the 1982 South Auckland Perceptual Motor Dysfunction Survey as having significantly impaired motor skills. The study also involves a follow-up of a number of students who were considered to be just above the cut-off point of those with significantly impaired motor skills to see whether their motor skills had improved or deteriorated in the subsequent four years. The work undertaken is believed to be the first longitudinal study of its kind of such magnitude to be conducted in New Zealand. Further, no other such comprehensive longitudinal motor skills testing programme appears to have been reported in the international literature that investigates the incidence of motor skill impairment in the same school population, using the same norm referenced test, and which can identify in some detail the nature and the degree of the motor impairment that is evident. This type of research work can offer valuable information to those in the education field involved in curriculum development, and to those involved in implementing policy and syllabus as the basis for the teaching of physical education in schools. Furthermore it identifies for teachers, for College of Education Physical Education staff and for trainee teachers the specific motor skill areas which require increased teaching and practice if adequate improvement and mastery of motor skills in the school setting is to be achieved. 2