Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 277

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Age Changes in Motor Skills During Childhood and Adolescence

BRANTA, CRYSTAL, HAUBENSTRICKER, JOHN, SEEFELDT, VERN·1984·Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews

Abstract

Reports dating back to the 1920s have unequivocally established that efficiency of movement improves during infancy and childhood, and generally through adolescence. The inclination from 1940 to 1960 to record movement in quantitative values has given way during the last two decades to a reemphasis of qualitative assessment. Investigators commonly agree that movement skills change in an orderly manner, but controversy continues over the degree of accuracy obtainable with the various descriptive forms, and over the utility of products resulting from such assessments. Comparison of the quantitative changes in movement skills of children is difficult because standardized procedures of test administration have not been applied. When comparisons are possible because of similar or identical testing protocols, improvement in selected motor tests is evident in both boys and girls until adolescence. At approximately 13 years of age the performance of girls in some tests reaches a plateau, and may even decline thereafter, while boys continue to improve in skills requiring strength, power, and muscular endurance. Exceptions to these generalizations occurred in arm and shoulder girdle muscular endurance, as measured by the flexed-arm hang, where boys had superior performances beginning at age 7, and in flexibility, as measured by the sit and reach test, where girls excelled at age 5 and thereafter. Stability of motor performance was greater for tasks that required all-out effort than for those emphasizing accuracy or total body coordination. Relationships between successive measures taken during early and middle childhood are likely to decline more rapidly than those taken after adolescence. Girls generally were more stable in motor performance than boys, except in the Motor Performance Study, where the values for boys across a range of 5 to 6 years were clearly more stable. This review underscores the need for careful documentation of the conditions under which data on motor performance are obtained. Numerous reports were examined and excluded by the authors because information that would have qualified the data for comparative analysis was not available. Essential ingredients in such reports are descriptions of the sampling techniques and the manner of calculating chronological ages, socioeconomic status, ethnic and racial characteristics, evidence of secular changes, geographic and environmental characteristics, and a detailed account of the testing procedures. Differences in maturational age for a given chronological age, and accompanying assumptions about body size, may account for differences in motor skills that might otherwise be attributed to changes in p

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1249/00003677-198401000-00015

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
BRANTA, C., HAUBENSTRICKER, J., & SEEFELDT, V.
Venue
Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews
Published
1984-01
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
467???520
ISSN
0091-6331 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2008246120
Cited by
277
References
0
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.