Dataset Information

Gross motor proficiency and intellectual functioning: A comparison among children with Down syndrome, children with borderline intellectual functioning, and typically developing children.

ABSTRACT: This cross-sectional study examines differences in gross motor proficiency as a function of different intellectual functioning profiles. Two motor areas have been investigated as being equally essential to gross motor functions in every-day life: locomotion and object control.It aims to compare gross motor skills endorsed by children with Down syndrome (DS), children with borderline intellectual functioning (BIF), and typically developing children (TDC).Group 1 was composed of 18 children with DS (chronological age?=?8.22), group 2 was composed of 18 children with BIF (chronological age?=?9.32), and group 3 was composed of 18 children with typical development (TD) (chronological age?=?9.28).Gross motor skills were measured through the test of gross motor development (TGMD-Test) composed of locomotion and object control tasks.Children with DS showed worse gross motor skills compared with children with BIF and typically developing children by underscoring both on all locomotion (e.g., walking, running, hopping, galloping, jumping, sliding, and leaping) and all object control tasks (e.g., throwing, catching, striking, bouncing, kicking, pulling, and pushing).In DS group strengths were found on run and slide skills, in BIF group strengths were on run, long jump and slide skills and in TDC group strengths were on run and slide skills. For all of the 3 groups the locomotor worst performed task was jump forward with arm swing.Findings suggest implications for further practice to develop evidence-based exercise programs aimed to rehabilitate gross motor skills through the regular participation in structured exercise activities.

SUBMITTER: Alesi M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6203563 | biostudies-other | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Gross motor proficiency and intellectual functioning: A comparison among children with Down syndrome, children with borderline intellectual functioning, and typically developing children.

Alesi Marianna M Battaglia Giusppe G Pepi Annamaria A Bianco Antonino A Palma Antonio A

Medicine 20181001 41

This cross-sectional study examines differences in gross motor proficiency as a function of different intellectual functioning profiles. Two motor areas have been investigated as being equally essential to gross motor functions in every-day life: locomotion and object control.It aims to compare gross motor skills endorsed by children with Down syndrome (DS), children with borderline intellectual functioning (BIF), and typically developing children (TDC).Group 1 was composed of 18 children with D ...[more]

PMID: 30313077

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPoor working memory, lower IQ and maladaptive behaviour form a triple disability known to have negative effects on the academic and social development of children with borderline intellectual functioning (BIF; IQ: 70 < IQ < 85) and neuropsychiatric disorders [attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and/or autism spectrum disorder (ASD)]. Treatment possibilities for these children are scarce and hardly evidence based. This study primarily investigated whether adaptive computerised working memory training (WMT) may lead to significantly more improvement on a non-trained visuospatial WM task compared with a non-adaptive control WMT (placebo) in children with BIF and neuropsychiatric disorders. As secondary outcome measures, we used the scores on several non-trained neuropsychological near-transfer and far-transfer tasks as well as behavioural measures.MethodWe conducted a triple-blind placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial in 72 children (aged 10;0-13;11 years, 53 boys, 19 girls) with BIF and comorbid neuropsychiatric disorders (ADHD = 37, ASD = 21, both = 14) that were referred to child and adolescent psychiatry care, between May 2012 and March 2019. Children completed the Dutch version of Cogmed WMT, either the adaptive training version or the non-adaptive placebo version, 25 sessions (30-45 min a day), for 5 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the score on a non-trained visuospatial working memory task. The primary outcome was measured before and directly after 5 weeks of WMT and again 6 months after training.ResultsA total of 375 children were screened for eligibility and 72 were randomised. No significantly higher levels of improvement over time were found on our primary outcome measure in the experimental WMT group compared with the placebo control WMT, nor in the secondary (near-transfer and far-transfer tasks) or tertiary (behavioural measures) outcome measures. However, this study did show changes over time for these measurements for both the experimental and placebo conditions.ConclusionsThis study was unable to document superior training effects over time of an adaptive WMT in children with BIF and neuropsychiatric disorders, compared with a placebo (non-adaptive) WMT. The objectively documented changes over time in the non-adaptive WMT arm suggest that these children with persistent impairments in WM may benefit from a structured learning environment that is associated with improvement of neurocognitive functioning and coping strategies. Further research is needed to examine which elements of cognitive training may be useful for which specific patients and to study long-term effects of training.

Dataset Information

Gross motor proficiency and intellectual functioning: A comparison among children with Down syndrome, children with borderline intellectual functioning, and typically developing children.

Publications

Gross motor proficiency and intellectual functioning: A comparison among children with Down syndrome, children with borderline intellectual functioning, and typically developing children.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets