Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Sports Medicine 10/2017

Open Access 06.04.2017 | Systematic Review

Interventions to Promote Fundamental Movement Skills in Childcare and Kindergarten: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

verfasst von: Kristin Wick, Claudia S. Leeger-Aschmann, Nico D. Monn, Thomas Radtke, Laura V. Ott, Cornelia E. Rebholz, Sergio Cruz, Natalie Gerber, Einat A. Schmutz, Jardena J. Puder, Simone Munsch, Tanja H. Kakebeeke, Oskar G. Jenni, Urs Granacher, Susi Kriemler

Erschienen in: Sports Medicine | Ausgabe 10/2017

Abstract

Background

Proficiency in fundamental movement skills (FMS) lays the foundation for being physically active and developing more complex motor skills. Improving these motor skills may provide enhanced opportunities for the development of a variety of perceptual, social, and cognitive skills.

Objective

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effects of FMS interventions on actual FMS, targeting typically developing young children.

Method

Searches in seven databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) up to August 2015 were completed. Trials with children (aged 2–6 years) in childcare or kindergarten settings that applied FMS-enhancing intervention programs of at least 4 weeks and meeting the inclusion criteria were included. Standardized data extraction forms were used. Risk of bias was assessed using a standard scoring scheme (Effective Public Health Practice Project—Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies [EPHPP]). We calculated effects on overall FMS, object control and locomotor subscales (OCS and LMS) by weighted standardized mean differences (SMDbetween) using random-effects models. Certainty in training effects was evaluated using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation System).

Results

Thirty trials (15 randomized controlled trials and 15 controlled trials) involving 6126 preschoolers (aged 3.3–5.5 years) revealed significant differences among groups in favor of the intervention group (INT) with small-to-large effects on overall FMS (SMDbetween 0.46), OCS (SMDbetween 1.36), and LMS (SMDbetween 0.94). Our certainty in the treatment estimates based on GRADE is very low.

Conclusions

Although there is relevant effectiveness of programs to improve FMS proficiency in healthy young children, they need to be interpreted with care as they are based on low-quality evidence and immediate post-intervention effects without long-term follow-up.
Begleitmaterial
Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1007/​s40279-017-0723-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Kristin Wick and Claudia S. Leeger-Aschmann are the co-first authors and Urs Granacher and Susi Kriemler are the co-last authors.
Abkürzungen
CI
Confidence interval
CON
Control group
CT
Controlled trial
EPHPP
Effective Public Health Practice Project—Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies
FMS
Fundamental movement skills
GRADE
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation System
INT
Intervention group
LMS
Locomotor subscale
OCS
Object control subscale
PRISMA
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
RCT
Randomized controlled trial
SD
Standard deviation
SE
Standard error
SMD
Standardized mean difference
WoS
Web of Science
Key Points
Proficiency in fundamental movement skills (FMS) can and should be trained and enhanced at an early age.
In this review, interventions tackling FMS improvement in typically developing young children (aged 2–6 years) show clear beneficial effects on overall FMS, locomotion, and object control skills.
As there is very little confidence in the effect estimates, and the true effect in this study is most likely different (stronger or weaker) from the effect estimate, more high-quality research with reduced bias is needed.

1 Introduction

Fundamental movement skills (FMS) are basic abilities and skills of a child to perform an organized series of basic movements that involve various body parts and provide the basis of achieving a high level of motor competence to develop normally, maintain health, and gain athletic excellence [15]. FMS is usually classified into basic locomotor skills that enable children to transfer the body in space (e.g. walking, running, jumping, sliding, hopping, and leaping), and object control skills that enable them to manipulate and project objects (i.e., throwing, catching, striking, bouncing, kicking, pulling, and pushing) [68]. Although locomotor and object control subscales (LMS and OCS) are reasonably well correlated (r = 0.84–0.96) [8], they should be differentiated, given their discrete and independent importance towards predicting health behaviors [9]. FMS are essential to the more specialized and complex skills used in play, games, and sports. Mastery of these basic motor skills that predominantly evolve during the preschool years [8, 10] is an essential part of pleasant participation and a lifelong interest in a physically active lifestyle [11, 12], or even of becoming an elite athlete [3].
Proficiency in FMS is considered critical to achieving and maintaining physical activity [11, 13] and physical fitness [14], preventing obesity [1517], and developing more complex motor skills for later life [9, 10]. Yet, an increasing number of young children have insufficiently developed FMS [1820]. Given that FMS are related to lifelong engagement in physical activity that is essential not only to maintain physical health, but likewise to support cognitive and social development during childhood [21], it is important to promote FMS during the first years of life [11]. The acquisition of FMS is not only achieved through natural development and maturation, but also through continuous interaction with a stimulating and supportive social and physical environment including attractive and sufficient space, a stimulating social attitude, as well as a professional instructional approach. This concept is based on a mutual interaction between the biological conditions and the environment that can be seen as a dynamic developmental system of perception and action [22]. This prepares children to engage in a wide and complex range of physical activities [6, 23] that induces adaptive neuro-motor development, and hence FMS [9, 10]. Based on the conceptual models introduced by Stodden et al. [10] and Robinson et al. [9], there is likely a bidirectional interaction between actual FMS and physical activity, with the association also being mediated by perceived FMS [24] and physical fitness [14]. Although important, this mediating role is yet insufficiently studied in young children [9] and therefore not in the scope of this review.
In the past, several reviews have covered the effects of FMS intervention programs on FMS in children. However, those articles either examined healthy school-aged children [25, 26], children with motor disabilities or handicaps [27, 28], or focused on physical activity [29, 30], which is clearly different from FMS. The two reviews with a similar scope to ours included primarily healthy preschool children and were published 5–7 years ago [31, 32]. Although both found that interventions were effective in improving FMS, these articles were methodologically limited and therefore failed to provide solid evidence of the effectiveness of FMS intervention in preschool children. One of these systematic reviews [32] included 17 studies with an intervention duration of 6–24 weeks. Sixty percent of the included studies showed statistically significant intervention effects. However, the authors did not conduct a meta-analysis due to the low methodological quality and the large heterogeneity of the included studies. The other review [31] included 22 studies that were primarily conducted in preschoolers. Findings showed that FMS interventions of 6–35 weeks’ duration produced effect sizes in the range of 0.39–0.45 for overall FMS, OCS, or LMS. However, these authors did not perform any form of quality rating of the included studies. Further, uncontrolled studies were assessed and the meta-analysis was computed based on pre-post values of the intervention groups only.
Due to this gap in the literature, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to describe and evaluate long-term effects (≥4 weeks) of childcare- and kindergarten-based intervention programs aiming to improve FMS in typically developing children during early childhood (ages 2–6 years). We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation System (GRADE) to define certainty in effect estimates for the main outcomes. We further performed subgroup analyses to tease out whether quality, duration of the studies, or the type of teacher (e.g., childcare or kindergarten staff) influenced results. Finally, we performed exploratory analyses to identify interventions that were more effective than others by assessing differences in effect sizes according to type of FMS test used, target groups (e.g., gender), the setting (e.g., childcare versus kindergarten), or intervention characteristics (e.g., duration of the intervention).

2 Methods

We conducted and reported this systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [33].
A librarian experienced in running systematic literature searches carried out a tailored literature search of papers on interventions to promote FMS using CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science from the year of the inception of each database through August 2015 (Electronic Supplementary Material [ESM] Table S1). Based on the PICOS approach [34], our search strategy focused on Population (e.g., children, preschoolers), Intervention (e.g., any type of intervention aiming at increasing FMS and reporting duration, frequency, and dose), Comparator (control group [CON] with usual childcare or kindergarten), Outcome (e.g., motor skills, running, hopping, balance skills), and Study design (e.g., controlled trial [CT], randomized controlled trial [RCT]). A repeated and broadened search approach was conducted after we retrieved a different set of eligible papers in our first searches with strategies that were too focused (e.g., preschoolers versus children, different exclusion criteria based on disease as motor handicaps or chronic disease rather than developmental delay), or too narrow (e.g., search options for the study design such as controlled study versus controlled trial or controlled intervention). Reference lists of included studies and published reviews were screened for additional potentially relevant articles.

2.2 Eligibility Criteria

Eligible studies were either clustered or unclustered CTs or RCTs that enrolled preschool children aged 2–6 years without major health problems or motor handicaps/disability, and assigned them to an intervention (INT) or a control (CON) arm with the specified aim of improving FMS. The intervention needed to take place in a common institutional setting where children of this age range spend their days (e.g., childcare, nursery, preschool, or kindergarten settings), irrespective of whether they belonged to the school or preschool system, with the aim of improving FMS proficiency. The duration of the intervention had to be at least 4 weeks as we were not interested in short-term effects. Further, the trial had to report a standardized motor skill outcome measure (preferably baseline and post-test or pre-post delta values—means, standard deviation [SD], and standard error [SE]) in both arms (INT and CON). We excluded studies not written in English or German, where only the abstract was available, and also trials that enrolled fewer than ten children because of the limited information that we would gain from such small sized studies.

2.3 Study Selection and Data Extraction

Teams of reviewers (CL, KW, LO, NM, SC, SK) worked independently and checked in pairs the eligibility status of identified citations by screening titles, abstracts, and then the full paper. In case of any disagreement, consensus was reached through discussions and also by including a third person. The reviewers used a pretested standardized form to extract information from each eligible study including participants and cluster demographics, intervention details, study methodology, and outcome data. We collected primary outcome data that comprised any measured single motor skill task, composite overall (total FMS), or subscale scores (OCS, LMS) of motor skills. Studies used a wide range of methods to assess FMS (ESM Table S2) and reported a variety of different outcome measures. Other outcome measures (i.e., physical activity and body composition) are not discussed here but are described in Table 1.
Table 1
Intervention characteristics of included studies
Study
Design
Target population
Setting; participants (mean age ± SD, years)
Assessmenta
Intervention program
Overview resultsb
Alhassan et al. [67]
United States
Cluster-randomized controlled trial
INT and CON: 4 classrooms from 2 preschool centers in each
Ethnic minority preschoolers
Preschool centers
INT: n = 43 (4.5 ± 0.6), CON: n = 28 (4.1 ± 0.6)
FMS: TGMD-2 (LMS)
PA: accelerometer
BC: height, weight, BMI (z-scores)
Data collection: 0, 6 months
Duration: 6 months
INT: 30 min structured PA lessons 5/week; lessons focusing on one of the skills of the TGMD-2 LMS; training sessions for teachers (total 8 h)
CON: 30 min unstructured free play time 5/week; training sessions for teachers (total 2 h)
FMS: leaping INT > CON; remaining tests INT ≈ CON
PA: sedentary INT < CON
BC: INT ≈ CON
Bellows et al. [36]
United States
Cluster-randomized controlled trial
INT and CON: 4 Head Start centers each
Preschool-aged children
Head Start centers
INT: n = 132 (4.4 ± 0.6)
CON: n = 131 (4.3 ± 0.6)
FMS: PDMS-2 (totFMS, OCS, LMS)
PA: pedometers
BC: height, weight, BMI (z-scores)
Data collection: 0, 18 weeks
Duration: 18 weeks
INT: 15–20 min structured PA lessons 4/week; lessons including multiple activities focusing on one or a group of skills from one of the three gross motor skill categories (Balance, LMS, OCS) by introducing fictive characters promoting motor skills and food; home material; training sessions for teachers. Additionally, those characters were also part of another nutrition-based study called ‘food friends’, which took place at the same time
CON: nutrition-based ‘food friends’ study
FMS: INT > CON
PA: INT ≈ CON
BC: INT ≈ CON
Bonvin et al. [69]
Switzerland
Cluster-randomized controlled trial
INT and CON: 29 childcare centers each
Young children aged 2–4 years
Childcare centers
INT: n = 313 (3.4 ± 0.6)
CON: n = 335 (3.3 ± 0.6)
FMS: adapted ZNA (totFMS)
PA: accelerometer
BC: height, weight, BMI
Data collection: 0, 9 months
Duration: 9 months
INT: 5 workshops for educators providing education in PA; promoting PA to parents via childcare educators; flyers; documentation and support at childcare center through coordinator; focus groups every 2 months; financial support for childcare centers to design activity-friendly spaces
CON: regular preschool program
FMS: INT ≈ CON
PA: INT ≈ CON
BC: INT ≈ CON
Delic [37]
Greece
Controlled trial
INT1, INT2 and CON: 1 class each, created out of the study participants
Kindergarten children
Preschool center
INT1: n = 25 (5.4 ± 0.5)
INT2: n = 25 (5.5 ± 0.3)
CON: n = 25 (5.4 ± 0.6)
FMS: TGMD
PA: none
BC: none
Data collection: 0, 10 weeks
Duration: 10 weeks
INT1: 35 min structured movement lessons 2/week; lessons in week 1–4 including exercises for body/space awareness, lessons in week 5–10 including locomotor skills
INT2: 35 min structured music and movement lessons 2/week focusing on percussion, reaction and creative movements; lessons in week 1–4 including exercises for body/space awareness and for determining personal rhythm, lessons in week 5–7 focusing on movement synchronization to external rhythms, and lessons in week 8–10 combining rhythm and fundamental locomotor skills
CON: free-play activities
FMS: INT > CON
PA: none
BC: none
Derri et al. [70]
Greece
Randomized controlled trial
INT and CON: 1 group each, created out of the study participants
Preschool children
No information about setting
INT: n = 35 (N/A)
CON: n = 33 (N/A)
INT and CON: (5.4 ± 0.6)
FMS: TGMD (LMS)
PA: none
BC: none
Data collection: 0, 10 weeks
Duration: 10 weeks
INT: 35–40 min structured music and movement lessons 2/week; lessons including body/space awareness, reaction, percussion movements and improvisation skills, and combining rhythm and fundamental locomotor skills
CON: 30–40 min free-play activities 2/week
FMS: galloping, leaping, horizontal jump, skipping INT > CON; remaining tests INT ≈ CON
PA: none
BC: none
Donath et al.c [38]
Switzerland
Cluster-randomized controlled trial
INT and CON: 3 kindergartens each
Kindergarten children
Kindergartens
INT: n = 22 (4.4 ± 1.0)
CON: n = 19 (4.4 ± 1.2)
FMS: TGMD-2 (OCS)
PA: none
BC: height, weight, BMI
Data collection: 0, 6 weeks
Duration: 6 weeks
INT: 30 min structured training sessions 2/week; lessons including object control exercises
CON: instructed and supervised training 2/week for playing activities by inexperienced instructor; no changes of daily physical and sportive activities
FMS: total sum score, stationary dribbling INT > CON; remaining tests INT ≈ CON
PA: none
BC: INT ≈ CON
Goodway and Branta [60]
United States
Clustered controlled trial
INT and CON: 2 preschool classes each
Disadvantaged preschool children
Preschool classes
INT: n = 31 (4.7 ± 0.3)
CON: n = 28 (4.7 ± 0.3)
FMS: TGMD (OCS, LMS)
PA: none
BC: none
Data collection: 0, 13 weeks
Duration: 12 weeks
INT: 45 min instructional lessons 2/week; lessons including sustained activity (10 min), skill instruction (3 × 10 min), and emphasizing key components of those skills (3 min)
CON: typical preschool program including free play time
FMS: INT > CON
PA: none
BC: none
Goodway et al. [61]
United States
Cluster-controlled trial
INT and CON: 2 pre-kindergarten classes each
Pre-kindergarten children at risk for DD
Pre-kindergarten
INT: n = 33 (4.9 ± 0.4)
CON: n = 30 (5.0 ± 0.4)
FMS: TGMD (OSC, LMS)
PA: none
BC: none
Data collection: 0, 9 weeks
Duration: 9 weeks
INT: 35 min instructional sessions 2/week; 3 × 10-min periods of skill instruction, using developmentally and instructionally appropriate practice
CON: typical pre-kindergarten curriculum
FMS: INT > CON
PA: none
BC: none
Hamilton et al. [39]
United States
Clustered controlled trial
INT: 3 preschool classes
CON: 2 preschool classes
Preschool children at risk for DD
Preschool classes
INT: n = 15 (3.9 ± 0.2)
CON: n = 12 (4.0 ± 0.3)
FMS: TGMD (OCS)
PA: none
BC: none
Data collection: 0, 8 weeks
Duration: 8 weeks
INT: 45 min parent-assisted instructional lessons 2/week; lessons including a minimum of 2 of the 5 object control skills, presented by parents at the center; parent instruction prior to each lesson (15 min); parent orientation meetings previous to study begin (2 × 45 min)
CON: regular activity program including movement songs and activities with parents, and opportunities for movement exploration 2/week for 45 min
FMS: INT > CON
PA: none
BC: none
Hardy et al. [40]
Australia
Cluster-randomized controlled trial
INT: 15 preschools
CON: 14 preschools
Preschool-aged children
Preschools and long-day care centers
INT: n = 263 (4.4 ± 0.5)
CON: n = 167 (4.5 ± 0.3)
FMS: TGMD-2 (totFMS, OCS, LMS)
PA: none
BC: none
Data collection: 0, 20 weeks
Duration: 20 weeks
INT: 1-day professional workshop for preschool staff (incorporating healthy eating and PA into education program; structural and organizational changes in preschools); resources for preschools (manual; small grant for purchasing activity equipment or support staff to attend training); contact with health promotion professionals
CON: preschools provided with written information on sun and road safety
FMS: INT ≈ CON
PA: none
BC: none
Hashemi et al. [74]
Iran
Controlled trial
INT and CON: no information about allocation
Preschool girls from non-affluent families without post-graduate education
Kindergartens
INT: n = 30 (5.1 ± 0.0)
CON: n = 30 (5.0 ± 0.1)
FMS: TGMD-2 (OCS)
PA: none
BC: height, weight
Data collection: 0, 6 weeks
Duration: 6 weeks
INT: 45 min structured lessons 3/week; lessons including warm-up, selected games (i.e. ball dodging), and cool-down
CON: regular daily activity
FMS: INT > CON
PA: none
BC: none
Hurmeric [51]
United States
Cluster-randomized controlled trial
INT1 and INT2: 3 mixed classes from 1 center
CON: 1 group from another center
Preschool children
Head Start centers
INT1: n = 22 (4.0 ± 0.5)
INT2: n = 25 (4.1 ± 0.5)
CON: n = 25 (4.0 ± 0.6)
FMS: TGMD-2 (OCS)
PA: none
BC: height, weight, BMI, grip strength, body fat
Data collection: 0, 8 weeks; follow-up at 12 weeks
Duration: 8 weeks
INT1: 30 min structured movement lessons 2/week; lessons including warm-up, instructions for two object control skills (2 × 12 min), and closure activities
INT2: same intervention as INT1; additional 10–15 min movement lesson at home conducted by primary caregiver with lesson plan, instructions and standardized equipment provided; workshop prior to intervention
CON: regular Head Start curriculum, including outdoor and large muscle activities
FMS: INT1 ≈ INT2 > CON
PA: none
BC: none
Ignico [41]
United States
Clustered controlled trial
INT and CON: 1 kindergarten class each
Kindergarten children
Elementary school
INT: n = 15 (N/A)
CON: n = 15 (N/A)
FMS: TGMD (totFMS)
PA: none
BC: none
Data collection: 0, 10 weeks
Duration: 10 weeks
INT: 28 min structured training sessions 5/week; lessons including 3 stations
CON: regular activities, including 20–25 min free play time
FMS: INT > CON
PA: none
BC: none
Iivonen et al. [54]
Finland
Clustered controlled trial
INT and CON: 2 classes from 2 preschools each
Distinction of sex
Preschool children
Preschools
INT: n = 39 (N/A)
CON: n = 35 (N/A)
INT and CON: (4.6 ± 0.1)
FMS: adapted APM Inventory (OCS)
PA: none
BC: none
Data collection: 0, 4, 8 months, Follow-up at 11 months
Duration: 8 months
INT: 45 min physical education lessons 2/week; lessons according to the Physical Education Curriculum (PEC) of the Early Steps Project [119]
CON: 60 min unstructured physical education lesson 1/week
FMS: INT ≈ CON
PA: none
BC: none
Jones et al. [75]
Australia
Cluster-randomized controlled trial
INT and CON: 1 class from 1 childcare center each
Preschool children
Childcare centers
INT: n = 52 (N/A)
CON: n = 45 (N/A)
INT and CON: (4.1 ± N/A)
FMS: TGMD-2 (totFMS)
PA: accelerometer
BC: height, weight, BMI
Data collection: 0, 20 weeks
Duration: 20 weeks
INT: 20 min structured PA lessons 3/week; lessons focusing on one motor competency each week; theoretical and practical workshops (4 × 30 min) for the staff; specific equipment provided to childcare
CON: usual program, including designated time outside for free play
FMS: INT > CON
PA: INT > CON
BC: none
Kelly et al. [42]
United States
Clustered controlled trial
INT: 2 groups from 1 preschool
CON: 1 group from another preschool
Preschool children
Motor Development Clinic (INT), Preschool (CON)
INT: n = 21 (4.4 ± 0.7)
CON: n = 26 (4.2 ± 0.7)
FMS: MEAP Test
PA: none
BC: none
Data collection: 0, 6, 12 weeks
Duration: 12 weeks
INT: 50 min physical education instruction 2/week; lessons including free play (5 min), introductory activities (8 min), instructional activities (30 min) and summary activities (7 min)
CON: daily periods of supervised free play on well-equipped playground; no formal instruction in physical education
FMS: INT ≈ CON
PA: none
BC: none
Krombholzc [43]
Germany
Clustered controlled trial
INT and CON: 11 childcare centers each
Preschool children
Childcare centers
INT: n = 211 (4.6 ± 0.6)
CON: n = 217 (4.5 ± 0.7)
FMS: MoTB 3–7 (totFMS)
PA: none
BC: height, weight, BMI, body fat
Data collection: 0, 11, 20 months
Duration: 20 months
INT: 45 min physical education session 1/week; Additional 20 min PA on the other days; lesson contents free to choose; raise awareness and train competency of educators
CON: usual curriculum, including 45 min physical education session 1/week
FMS: INT ≈ CON
PA: none
BC: INT ≈ CON
Piek et al.c [44]
Australia
Cluster-randomized controlled trial
INT and CON: 6 schools each
Young children aged 4–6 years from low socioeconomic area
Primary schools
INT: n = 254 (N/A)
CON: n = 196 (N/A)
INT and CON: (5.4 ± 0.3)
FMS: BOT-2SF, MABC-2 (totFMS)
PA: none
BC: height, weight, BMI (z-score), waist circumference
Data collection: 0, 6 months; follow-up at 18 months
Duration: 6 months
INT: 30 min PA lessons 4/week; lessons including different modules of the Animal Fun Program (body management, locomotion, object control, etc.); 1-day training course for teachers prior to intervention
CON: normal curriculum
FMS: INT ≈ CON
PA: none
BC: none
Puder et al. [71]
Switzerland
Cluster-randomized controlled trial
INT and CON: 20 preschool classes each from a total of 30 preschools in 2 different country regions
Preschool children from an area with high proportion of migrants
Preschool
INT: n = 342 (5.2 ± 0.6)
CON: n = 310 (5.2 ± 0.6)
FMS: shuttle run (20 m), obstacle course, balance beam and platform
PA: accelerometer
BC: height, weight, BMI, body fat, waist circumference
Data collection: 0, 9 months
Duration: 9 months
INT: 45 min PA lessons 4/week; lessons including mainly aerobic exercises in/around the school and in the gym; home material; nutritional intervention
CON: regular school curriculum, including 45 min PA in the gym 1/week in both regions, and another 45 min rhythmic lesson in the other region
FMS: shuttle run, obstacle course INT > CON; remaining tests INT ≈ CON
PA: INT > CON
BC: body fat, waist circumference INT < CON; remaining tests INT ≈ CON
Reilly et al. [45]
Scotland
Cluster-randomized controlled trial
INT and CON: 18 nurseries each
Young children
Nurseries
INT: n = 268 (4.2 ± 0.3)
CON: n = 277 (4.1 ± 0.3)
FMS: MABC (totFMS)
PA: accelerometer
BC: height, weight, BMI (SD score)
Data collection: 0, 6 months; follow-up at 12 months
Duration: 24 weeks
INT: 30 min PA lessons 3/week; lessons intending to increase PA levels of children and meet the requirements of the ‘physical development and movement’ component of the nursery curriculum of Scotland; training sessions for nurses (3×); resource pack of materials for home based intervention (health education leaflets); posters displayed at nurseries for 6 weeks
CON: usual curriculum, with the head teachers agreeing not to enhance physical development and movement curriculum
FMS: INT > CON
PA: moderate-vigorous INT > CON; remaining measures INT ≈ CON
BC: INT ≈ CON
Robinson and Goodway [55]
United States
Cluster-controlled trial
INT: 1 Head Start center
CON: 1 Head Start center
Preschool children at risk for DD
Head Start centers:
INT1/2: n = 77 (3.9 ± 0.6)
CON: n = 40 (4.0 ± 0.4)
FMS: TGMD-2 (OCS)
PA: none
BC: none
Data collection: 0, 9 weeks; follow-up at 9 weeks
Duration: 9 weeks
INT: 30 min motor skill intervention 2/week ‘low autonomy’ (INT1) or ‘mastery motivational climate’ (INT2); warm-up activity (2–3 min), motor skill instruction for OC skills (24 min), closure activity (2–3 min), typical Head Start curriculum; +30 min unstructured recess 2/week
CON: typical Head Start curriculum; 30 min unstructured recess 2/week
FMS: INT(INT1/2) > CON
PA: none
BC: none
Roth et al. [72]
Germany
Cluster-randomized controlled trial
INT: 21 preschools
CON: 20 preschools
Preschool children
Preschools
INT: n = 368 (4.7 ± 0.6
CON: n = 341 (4.7 ± 0.5)
FMS: Single items (obstacle course, standing long jump, balancing on one foot, jumping to and fro sideways) − composite z-score (totFMS)
PA: accelerometer
BC: height, weight, BMI (z-score), blood pressure, body fat
Data collection: 0, 6, 11 months; follow-up at 13–15 months
Duration: 11 months
INT: 30 min PA lessons 5/week; lessons including exercises to enhance coordinative skills and perception; manual, collection of games, and exercises for preschools; PA homework cards 1 or 2/week; letters comprising games/exercises for holidays
CON: routine schedule, including common daily activity and weekly PA class
FMS: INT > CON, 1-leg stance, standing long jump, lateral jump INT > CON; obstacle course INT ≈ CON
PA: INT ≈ CON
BC: body fat INT < CON; remaining tests INT ≈ CON
Tsapakidou et al. [46]
Greece
Controlled trial
INT and CON: 3 kindergartens together
Children aged 3.5–5 years
Nursery schools
INT: n = 49 (N/A)
CON: n = 49 (N/A),
INT and CON: (3.5–5)
FMS: TGMD-2 (LMS)
PA: none
BC: none
Data collection: 0, 2 months
Duration: 2 months
INT: 30–40 min physical education lessons 2/week; lessons including exercises to raise body awareness, rhythm, coordinative skills and creativity to develop basic motor skills
CON: daily schedule
FMS: INT > CON
PA: none
BC: none
Valentini [62]
United States
Controlled trial
INT and CON: 1 early education center together
Low motor skill functioning children
Early education center
INT: n = 38 (5.1 ± 0.3)
CON: n = 29 (5.3 ± 0.5)
FMS: TGMD (OCS, LMS)
PA: none
BC: none
Data collection: 0, 12 weeks; follow-up at 9 months
Duration: 12 weeks
INT: 35 min motor skill lessons 2/week; lessons including introduction, motor skill instruction and practice (30 min), and closure, according to TARGET structure [120]
CON: regular curriculum
FMS: LMS INT > CON, OCS INT ≈ CON
PA: none
BC: none
Venetsanou and Kambas [73]
Greece
Controlled trial
No information about allocation
Preschool children
Kindergarten
INT: n = 28 (N/A)
CON: n = 38 (N/A)
INT and CON: (5.0 ± 0.5)
FMS: MOT4-6 (totFMS)
PA: none
BC: none
Data collection: 0, 20 weeks
Duration: 20 weeks
INT: 45 min musical movement lessons 2/week; lessons including percussive movements and rhythmical locomotion (i.e. singing games, playing percussion instruments)
CON: regular kindergarten curriculum activities
FMS: INT > CON
PA: none
BC: none
Vidoni et al. [68]
United States
Cluster-randomized controlled trial
INT and CON: 1 class of the same daycare center in each
Preschool children
Daycare center
INT: n = 18 (N/A)
CON: n = 15 (N/A)
INT and CON: (4.5 ± N/A)
FMS: BOT-2SF (totFMS)
PA: none
BC: none
Data collection: 0, 11 weeks
Duration: 11 weeks
INT: 30 min structured PA program 5/week; lessons including circuit training and exercises based on the MAZE approach [121]
CON: regular day-care center schedule, including 30 min unstructured PA 5/week
FMS: INT > CON
PA: none
BC: none
Wang [47]
Taiwan
Controlled trial
INT and CON: 1 group from the same preschool in each
Preschool children
Preschool
INT: n = 30 (N/A)
CON: n = 30 (N/A)
INT and CON: (3–5)
FMS: PDMS-2
PA: none
BC: none
Data collection: 0, 6 weeks
Duration: 6 weeks
INT: 30 min creative movement lessons 2/week; lessons including exploring, developing and creating different movements in relation to dancing
CON: unstructured free play
FMS: LMS INT > CON; remaining tests INT ≈ CON
PA: none
BC: none
Weiss et al. [48]
Germany
Controlled trial
1 group from the same kindergarten in each
Kindergarten children
Kindergarten
INT: n = 24 (4.7 ± N/A)
CON: n = 22 (4.9 ± N/A)
FMS: MOT4-6
PA: none
BC: height, weight, BMI
Data collection: 0, 6 months
Duration: 6 months
INT: 60 min back training lessons 1/week; lessons including a variety of games in combination with different material
CON: usual kindergarten schedule including regular PA lessons
FMS: INT > CON
PA: none
BC: none
Yin et al. [52]
United States
Clustered controlled trial
INT1: 14 classes in 2 centers
INT2: 5 classes in 1 center
CON: 6 classes in 1 center
Preschool-aged children
Head Start centers
INT1: n = 179 (4.1 ± 0.6)
INT2: n = 80 (4.2 ± 0.5)
CON: n = 97 (4.1 ± 0.5)
FMS: LAP-3 (totFMS)
PA: pedometer
BC: height, weight, BMI (z-score)
Data collection: 0, 18 weeks; Additional 3 mid-study tests
Duration: 18 weeks
INT1: 30–45 min structured and unstructured outdoor lessons 5/week; lessons including gross motor skills teaching and dance instruction; supplemental classroom activities; healthy eating promotion
INT2: same intervention as INT1; additional take-home activities, parent obesity education and family support monitoring for healthy eating and PA
CON: regular schedule, including unstructured free play on the playground 5/week
FMS: INT1 > CON, INT2 > CON
PA: INT1 > CON, INT2 > CON
BC: BMI INT1 ≈ CON, INT2 < CON
Zask et al. [49]
Australia
Cluster-randomized controlled trial
INT: 18 preschools
CON: 13 preschools
Children aged 3–6 years
Preschools
INT: n = 273 (N/A)
CON: n = 142 (N/A)
INT and CON: (4.6 ± 0.6)
FMS: TGMD-2 (totFMS, LMS)
PA: none
BC: height, weight, BMI (z-score), waist circumference
Data collection: 0, 10 months
Duration: 10 months
INT: 25–30 min structured FMS development lessons 2/week; lessons including warm-up (5 min), games in groups (15–20 min), and cool-down (5 min); small grant for equipment; playground review to encourage more active behavior; workshops and monthly newsletter for parents; healthy eating intervention
CON: regular curriculum
FMS: INT > CON
PA: none
BC: BMI, waist circumference INT < CON
AMP Alle kouluikäisten lasten PsykoMotoriset taidot, BC body composition, BMI body mass index, BOT-2SF Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency—version 2 Short Form, CON control group, DD developmental delay, FMS fundamental movement skills, INT intervention group, LAP-3 Learning Achievement Profile 3rd edition, LMS locomotor subscale, MABC-2 Movement assessment battery for children-version 2, MEAP Michigan Educational Assessment Program, MOT4-6 Motorik test for 4- to 6-year-old children, MoTB3-7 motor test battery, N/A not available, OCS object control subscale, PA physical activity, PDMS-2 Peabody Development Motor Scale—2nd edition, SD standard deviation, TGMD-2 Test of Gross Motor Development—2nd edition, totFMS total fundamental movement skill score, ZNA Zurich Neuromotor Assessment
aElectronic Supplementary Material Table S2 gives an overview of all used FMS test batteries within included studies
bFor detailed information see Electronic Supplementary Material Table S5; results depicted are only between groups post-intervention provided from studies; for </>, there is a significant difference; for ≈, there is no significant difference
cNumber of participants and mean age ± SD in years only available for post-test period

2.4 Risk of Bias Assessment

The reviewers assessed the risk of bias of each eligible study using a slightly adapted version of the established ‘Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies’ (EPHPP) that has been proven valid in assessing Public Health interventions [35] (ESM Table S3). This quality assessment tool rates study procedures as ‘strong’, ‘moderate’, or ‘weak’ using eight scales (selection bias, study design, confounders, blinding, data collection methods, withdrawal/dropouts, intervention integrity, and analyses). The same procedure was always applied. That is, two reviewers from a group of four (CL, LO, NM, SK) independently scored the items for each study as ‘strong’, ‘moderate’, or ‘weak’. In cases of disagreement, consensus was reached by discussion or third party arbitration. We provided an overall ‘strong’ or ‘high quality’ score if no ‘weak’ item score existed and at least four of the eight items were ‘strong’. An overall ‘moderate quality’ score was provided with only one ‘weak’ item score and otherwise only ‘strong’ and ‘moderate’ item scores. The remaining studies were overall rated ‘weak’ or ‘low quality’. The reviewers were not blinded to names of authors, institutions, journal, or the outcomes of the trials.

2.5 Missing Data

We contacted the authors of fourteen studies [3649] to obtain missing information about the FMS assessments (means of standard or raw scores of single FMS items, OSC, LMS, total scores, SD, and number of participants who took part in INT and CON) to be able to conduct our meta-analysis. Of those, six authors answered [36, 38, 40, 43, 44, 49] and provided detailed information on the requested data. One author answered but could not help [39], and seven authors [37, 41, 42, 4548] did not respond to our repeated requests. Of those, three studies [41, 45, 46] provided total FMS scores in the original article that could be included in some, but not all meta-analytical calculations. The other four studies [37, 42, 47, 48] did not provide any missing data (mean and SD for single item, subscale, or total FMS scores) and therefore results for meta-analyses were not available. However, these studies reported sufficient descriptive and analytical results to be included in this review.

2.6 Meta-Analyses

Data were extracted for meta-analyses (KW) and checked for accuracy (CL). Studies that provided the number of participants, measures of baseline and post-test values (means and SD or SE) [50] for total FMS proficiency (total FMS score), subscales or single motor skill items were included. Post-intervention values were taken for meta-analyses. We chose the INT that focused on interventions taking place in the childcare or kindergarten setting if more than one INT was included [37, 51, 52]. Outcome data of total FMS proficiency and subscales were pooled after conversion to the most familiar and most used instrument (TGMD-2 [Test of Gross Motor Development—2nd edition]) to enhance interpretability of meta-analyses results [53]. Because of scarce subgroup data (e.g., for gender [49, 54], motivational climates [55]), these groups were combined for the meta-analysis of total FMS scores [56].
To verify the effectiveness of FMS intervention programs in childcare and kindergarten settings, we computed between-group standardized mean differences as SMDbetween = (mean post-test value in INT group − mean post-test value in CON group)/pooled variance to report the average treatment effect [50]. We combined SMDbetween according to random-effect analyses to obtain an overall SMD for included studies that were further weighted for magnitude of the respective SE. SMDbetween were adjusted for the respective sample size (Hedges’ adjusted g) [50] and expressed based on Cohen’s (1988) categorizing values for SMDwithin/SMDbetween of <0.5 as small, 0.5–0.79 as medium, and ≥0.80 as large effects [57]. Studies that provided insufficient data to be included in meta-analyses, but fulfilled our eligibility criteria, were kept in the review [37, 42, 47, 48].

2.7 Investigation of Heterogeneity, Subgroup and Exploratory Analyses

Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using I 2 statistics. To explain expected heterogeneity among study results, we defined a set of two a priori hypotheses on which sensitivity analyses of subgroups were performed. First, we hypothesized that, based on social-cognitive theory [58] and the stages of behavioral change [59], an intervention of 6–8 months is the minimum amount of time needed for a sustainable change in behavior, not so much by the children themselves, but by the childcare and kindergarten professionals and the parents who direct the behavior of children at this young age. Second, we hypothesized that the results of trials would be influenced by their methodological quality. Only for this purpose, we compared ‘high quality’ trials based on our quality rating with ‘moderate’ and ‘low quality’ studies, respectively (ESM Table S4), using all studies that reported total FMS, OCS, or LMS scores. For three studies that reported both OCS and LMS scores but no total FMS score [6062], the subscale scores were combined [63] to calculate the total FMS score; the variance was then determined by using a correlation between OCS and LMS of 1.0 as a conservative approach [8]. For both subgroup analyses (e.g., methodological quality, duration of the intervention) we calculated weighted mean SMDbetween for the subgroups to test our hypotheses using Review Manager 5.3 (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014). Due to the heterogeneity of FMS assessment tools used in studies, we defined a further posteriori hypothesis that test results would not vary according to the test battery used. As the majority of studies used one specific test (TGMD or TGMD-2), we compared those studies that used either version of this test battery versus those that used another test.
Further exploratory analyses were done to identify interventions that were more effective than others. These included the evaluation of differences in effect sizes according to target groups (e.g., focusing on risk populations for developmental delays rather than taking a population approach, differences in gender), the setting (e.g., kindergarten or childcare) or intervention characteristics (e.g., the use of a theoretical framework on which the intervention was built on, the integration of expert teachers versus the usual childcare or kindergarten teacher, parental involvement).

2.8 Certainty in Treatment Estimates

We used the GRADE approach to categorize certainty in effect estimates for all reported outcomes as high, moderate, low, or very low [64]. Based on this approach, RCTs start as high certainty but can be rated down because of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. CTs start as low certainty, but can be upgraded based on large magnitude effects, dose-response results or confounders that likely minimized the effect [65]. The results are presented in GRADE evidence profiles [66] using GRADEproGDT (http://​www.​guidelinedevelop​ment.​org/​).

3 Results

3.1 Study Characteristics

Overall, we identified 17,566 unique records, of which we assessed 41 articles for eligibility (Fig. 1). After reviewing the full texts, 30 articles were eligible including 6126 children with an age range of 3.3–5.5 years. All included trials are shown in Table 1. Twelve of the 30 studies were carried out in the US [36, 39, 41, 42, 51, 52, 55, 6062, 67, 68], 12 in European countries [37, 38, 43, 45, 46, 48, 54, 6973], and the remainder elsewhere (Iran [74], Australia [40, 44, 49, 75], and Taiwan [47]).
There were 15 RCTs [36, 38, 40, 44, 45, 49, 51, 55, 6772, 75], including 14 cluster RCTs [36, 38, 40, 44, 45, 49, 51, 55, 6769, 71, 72, 75], and 15 CTs [37, 39, 4143, 4648, 52, 54, 6062, 73, 74] including eight cluster CT studies [39, 4143, 52, 54, 60, 61].
The duration of the interventions ranged from 6 weeks to 20 months. Ten studies [4345, 48, 49, 54, 67, 69, 71, 72] lasted ≥6 months and seven studies [44, 45, 51, 54, 55, 62, 72] had a follow-up of 9 weeks to 18 months after the end of the intervention period.
The frequency of FMS intervention sessions given per week varied between once per week to daily. Five studies [41, 52, 67, 68, 72] offered an FMS intervention every day, 22 studies [3639, 4247, 49, 51, 54, 55, 6062, 70, 71, 7375] two to four times per week, one study [48] once a week and two studies [40, 69] did not specify the frequency. Fifteen studies [36, 38, 41, 4345, 47, 49, 51, 55, 61, 67, 68, 72, 75] documented single intervention sessions lasting between 15 and 30 min, and 13 studies [37, 39, 42, 46, 48, 52, 54, 60, 62, 70, 71, 73, 74] between 30 to 65 min. Two studies [40, 69] did not provide any information for duration of a single session. All interventions were carried out in childcare or kindergarten settings (i.e., nursery center, early educational center, Head Start center). All interventions included either structured FMS sessions with additional unstructured time for physical activity in five trials [40, 42, 49, 52, 75] or only unstructured physical activity time but specifically devoted to improve FMS in two studies [43, 69]. In the structured FMS sessions, the intervention protocols consisted of an overall or specific training of FMS, including object control, locomotor and balance skill exercises, but also coordinative skills, rhythm with percussions and/or music, body awareness and perception, as well as games and creative movements, and improvisation skills. Unstructured physical activity time comprised defined free outdoor playtime and/or additional playground material to encourage physically active behavior and the development of FMS. Eight studies [36, 39, 45, 49, 51, 69, 71, 72] also focused on parental work (homework cards and physical activity home assignments for children with promotion of physical activity and FMS to parents) and nine studies set a focus on training sessions (workshops) for staff, nurses, and educators [36, 40, 4345, 49, 67, 69, 75]. Four studies [36, 48, 52, 71] also taught the importance of healthy eating and nutrition to the children. To assess FMS (for a precise description of all tests see ESM Table S2), 16 studies [3741, 46, 49, 51, 55, 6062, 67, 70, 74, 75] used the TGMD—first or second edition, two studies [44, 68] used the BOT-2SF (Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of motor proficiency—Version 2 Short Form), two [48, 73] the MOT4-6 (Motorik Test for 4- to 6-year-old children), two [36, 47] the PDMS-2 (Peabody Development Motor Scale—2nd edition), and another eight studies [42, 43, 45, 52, 54, 69, 71, 72] used single items or other FMS test batteries.

3.2 Risk of Bias

Overall, eight out of 30 studies (27%) [38, 40, 45, 51, 69, 71, 72, 75] were rated to be of high methodological quality (see ESM Table S4). A total of eleven studies [36, 40, 4345, 49, 52, 55, 69, 71, 72] had >100 participants (of those, five studies [40, 45, 69, 71, 72] were of high quality). Just six studies applied intention-to-treat analyses [41, 46, 69, 71, 72, 75] but most studies measured the study groups at similar times. Insufficient information was provided to score the adequacy of the randomization procedure in nine studies [36, 38, 44, 49, 51, 6770] (30%), and five studies [37, 38, 42, 47, 48] lacked information on allocation concealment or blinding of assessors at outcome assessment. Most studies reported detailed information regarding the intervention protocol for duration of training and training content (Table 1). However, the curriculum of the CON was not specified beyond usual care in 19 of the 30 studies.

3.3 Effects of Interventions to Improve Fundamental Movement Skills

Findings from 26 out of 30 studies [36, 3841, 4346, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 6062, 6775] were aggregated and included in different meta-analytical calculations (ESM Table S5). For four studies [37, 42, 47, 48], results for meta-analytical calculations were not available. Results of those four studies lasting 6 weeks to 6 months included two studies [37, 47] that reported statistically significant differences for the LMS at post-intervention in favor of the INT, one study [48] found statistically significant differences for overall motor proficiency in favor of the INT, and one study [42] found no significant differences in FMS among groups.
Forest plots and summary results of the meta-analyses for total FMS, OCS, and LMS are described in Fig. 2 and Table 2. Thirteen [36, 40, 41, 4345, 49, 52, 68, 69, 72, 73, 75] out of 26 studies which measured overall motor proficiency (total FMS score) showed small effects of the intervention programs on the INT compared with CON (weighted mean SMDbetween = 0.46, 95% CI 0.28–0.65; I 2 = 83%, Fig. 2a). The subscale-specific analyses revealed large effects of intervention programs on the OCS in 11 [36, 3840, 51, 54, 55, 6062, 74] out of 26 studies (weighted mean SMDbetween = 1.36, 95% CI 0.80–1.91; I 2 = 94%, Fig. 2b) and also large effects in nine studies [36, 40, 46, 49, 6062, 67, 70] on the LMS (weighted mean SMDbetween = 0.94, 95% CI 0.59–1.30; I 2 = 88%, Fig. 2c). Based on GRADE, there was very low certainty of evidence (Table 2) for effect sizes of the total FMS score and both subscale scores including, but not limited to, a high chance of a publication bias (ESM Fig. S1).
Table 2
GRADE evidence profiles: fundamental movement skills (FMS) enhancing intervention versus usual care
Quality assessment
No. of participantsf
Absolute effect (95% CI)f
Quality
Importance
No. of studies
Study design
Risk of bias
Inconsistency
Indirectness
Imprecision
Other considerations
INT
CON
Overall FMS (follow-up: range 6 weeks to 20 months; assessed with or converted to TGMD-2; standard score from 2 to 40)
16
RCT and CT
Seriousa,b
Seriousc
Seriousd
Not serious
Publication biase
2103
1847
SMD 0.46 higher (0.28–0.65 higher)
Very low
Important
OCS (follow-up: range 6 weeks to 8 months; assessed with or converted to TGMD-2; standard score from 1 to 20)
11
RCT and CT
Seriousa,b
Seriousc
Seriousd
Not serious
Publication biase
619
499
SMD 1.36 higher (0.80–1.91 higher)
Very low
Important
LMS (follow-up: range 6 weeks to 11 months; assessed with or converted to TGMD-2; standard score from 1 to 20)
10
RCT and CT
Seriousa,b
Seriousc
Seriousd
Not serious
Publication biase
796
572
SMD 0.94 higher (0.59–1.30 higher)
Very low
Important
GRADE Working Group grade of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
CI confidence interval, CON control group, CT controlled trial, GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation System, INT intervention group, LMS Locomotor Subscale, OCS Object Control Subscale, RCT randomized controlled trial, SMD standardized mean difference
aSerious because of no clear randomization procedures described
bSerious because of selection bias (unclear or inadequate allocation concealment), detection bias (unclear blinding of data analysts), study integrity (unclear compliance with the intervention)
cSerious because of statistical heterogeneity (I 2 = 83–88%; p < 0.0001)
dSerious because of important differences in implementation across settings
eSerious because publication bias possible
f3 and 1 studies for overall FMS and LMS scores, respectively, could not be included in meta-analyses
ESM Figs. S2–S4 illustrate forest plots of the intervention effects for single motor skill items integrated in the TGMD-2 scores, and other skills like the standing long jump and balance. Intervention effects were statistically significant in favor of INT for all single items, with effect sizes ranging from low to moderate (0.19–0.83). There was only a small number (i.e., 3–7) of studies in each meta-analysis and a high heterogeneity with I 2 ranging from 73 to 90%, except for the standing long jump that showed an I 2 = 0%. There was no clear picture regarding characteristics of the interventions (frequency, duration), target population (disadvantaged children, age), or setting (childcare, kindergarten) that explained why the effectiveness in total FMS and subscales varied considerably.

3.4 Subgroup and Exploratory Analyses

3.4.1 Subgroup Analyses

Figure 3a displays the overall dose–response relationship according to the duration of the interventions. The 17 trials [36, 3841, 46, 51, 52, 55, 6062, 68, 70, 7375] with a shorter duration (4 weeks to 5 months) showed significantly higher effect sizes on overall FMS compared with those eight studies [4345, 49, 54, 67, 69, 72] with longer duration (≥6 months) (weighted mean SMDbetween = 1.43, 95% CI 0.49–2.38). Four studies [37, 42, 47, 48] did not report their results and, for one study [71], data were available only for single items. Figure 3b presents the intervention effects for 25 trials [36, 3841, 4346, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 6062, 6770, 7275] according to methodological quality. Eight studies [36, 43, 49, 52, 55, 60, 61, 67] with ‘moderate’ (weighted mean SMDbetween = 1.00, 95% CI −0.09 to 2.10) and ten studies [39, 41, 44, 46, 54, 62, 68, 70, 73, 74] with ‘weak’ (weighted mean SMDbetween = 0.27, 95% CI −0.64 to 1.18) methodological quality showed no statistically significant differences in effect sizes on overall FMS compared with the seven studies [38, 40, 45, 51, 69, 72, 75] of ‘high’ methodological quality. For total FMS we compared studies that used the TGMD-2 test versus others that used different tests. There was no significant difference in effect sizes between the four studies [40, 41, 49, 75] that used the TGMD-2 and the nine studies [36, 4345, 52, 68, 69, 72, 73] that used another test (weighted mean SMDbetween = 0.72, 95% CI −0.50 to 1.94).

3.4.2 Exploratory Analyses

Nine [41, 4446, 49, 51, 54, 61, 62] out of 30 studies in this systematic review looked at some aspects of gender differences but results were too heterogeneous to run meta-analyses. Effects in girls compared with boys for total FMS were larger in three [41, 45, 49] and smaller in one study [44]. For locomotor skills, no difference in effect sizes were found between the sexes in three studies [46, 61, 62]. However, consistently larger effects were found for object control skills in boys compared with girls in four studies [51, 54, 61, 62]. There was no clear picture regarding characteristics of the interventions (frequency, duration), target population (disadvantaged children, age) or setting (childcare, kindergarten) that explained gender differences in results. Four studies [39, 6062] included disadvantaged children or children that were at risk of delay in FMS competence due to socioeconomic or biological factors. Three of these studies [39, 60, 61] showed particularly large effect sizes (SMDbetween) for LMS and OCS (2.06–2.76).
Figure 3c shows the intervention effects according to the persons who implemented the FMS intervention in childcares or kindergartens. The 11 studies [38, 39, 41, 51, 52, 55, 6062, 67, 73] in which external experts implemented the intervention programs compared with the 12 studies [36, 40, 4346, 49, 54, 68, 69, 72, 75] in which childcare or kindergarten teachers were responsible for implementation showed statistically significant higher effect sizes on overall FMS (weighted mean SMDbetween = 1.46, 95% CI 0.52–2.40). For five studies [37, 42, 47, 48, 71], results were not available due to missing SMD, SD, and/or SE or due to the reporting of only single items. Whether studies were more or less effective was not differentiated by either the setting where FMS interventions took place (kindergarten versus childcare), the use of a theoretical framework on which the intervention was based (yes versus no), or the additional involvement of parents in FMS intervention programs (yes versus no) (data not shown). In addition, we were unable to tease out the most effective intervention approach based on pedagogic concept, the volume or the content of the interventions to improve and develop FMS.

4 Discussion

Our systematic review and meta-analyses revealed beneficial effects on overall motor skill proficiency (total FMS score), as well as on object control and locomotor skills in children aged 2–6 years with small-to-large effect sizes following FMS intervention programs conducted in childcare or kindergarten settings. Further, studies of shorter (<6 months) compared with longer duration (≥6 months) and the integration of external experts rather than implementation of the programs by the usual childcare/kindergarten teachers resulted in higher effect sizes, while the methodological quality of the studies did not play a role. Importantly, due to the low certainty of evidence based on GRADE, findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis have to be interpreted with care. Even though most studies conducted in childcare and kindergarten proved to be effective, we have to acknowledge that the effect estimates and the true effect may likely be substantially different from the current effect estimates as reported in this review. This finding should by no means be interpreted as that FMS interventions in young children should not be done as there is insufficient evidence, but rather, it should be taken as a key message that more high-quality research is needed in the field of FMS interventions in early childhood [76]. A higher quality of studies would imply high-standard randomization procedures, the careful selection of control groups to prevent cross-contamination [77, 78], the integration of appropriate power analyses to calculate sample sizes needed for group or sub-group analyses (e.g., for gender), and the blinding of assessors for important outcomes such as FMS [79, 80]. Further, it seems imperative and timely to carefully select and standardize test batteries for FMS assessment [81], to use adequate statistical methods including appropriate baseline comparisons as well as the control for important confounders and clusters [82], to assess intervention fidelity [83], and finally to integrate long-term follow-up [84].

4.1 Interpretation of Overall, Subgroup, and Exploratory Analyses

Despite our comprehensive search in seven databases from the year of inception up to August 2015, only 30 studies fulfilled our eligibility criteria, 15 of which [37, 39, 4143, 4648, 52, 54, 6062, 73, 74] were CTs rather than RCTs. There was, however, no major difference in findings and effect sizes between CTs or RCTs (data not shown). Contrary to physiological considerations of a dose-response principle with the expectation that longer interventions would lead to higher effect sizes, we found that longer interventions showed smaller effect sizes (Fig. 3a). This trend was also documented in other reviews [31] and suggests that a loss of compliance and motivation may have occurred with activities provided during FMS interventions becoming monotonous and leading children and caregivers to lose interest over time [25]. Alternatively, there may have been insufficient adaption of the programs, which need training progression over time to keep up a stimulus [85, 86].
The methodological quality of the studies was not proportional to the effect sizes of the intervention on FMS (Fig. 3b), suggesting that an overestimation of training on FMS in preschoolers did not occur. It is also reassuring that the overall picture of beneficial effects of interventions on overall FMS, OCS, and LMS was consistent and in accordance with other reviews focusing on children with developmental delays [27, 28] or on children with an older age range [25, 26]. Even in the single test items, findings revealed medium (jumping, throwing, catching, kicking) or at least small (running, hopping, standing long jump, balance) effect sizes. Yet, based on GRADE (Table 2), where we assessed the magnitude of effects and the overall quality of evidence and found that the estimates of FMS interventions in young children are trustworthy, we have little confidence in the effect estimates and it is therefore very probable that the true effect is likely substantially smaller or larger than the effect estimate. Of the five relevant factors that can lower the quality of evidence, four factors showed serious limitations. These included the failure of describing the detailed study design and execution or risk of bias (e.g., no clear description of randomization procedures), the finding of inconsistency or heterogeneity of effects (e.g., statistical heterogeneity of effects with I 2 > 80% all outcomes), indirectness or applicability (e.g., important differences in implementation across settings), and a possible publication bias (ESM Fig. S1). Smaller estimates of effects of FMS interventions may, for instance, be found if assessors of FMS are blinded for group assignments [79, 80], while larger effects may be found if fidelity regarding the implementation of the intervention is assessed [83], or by the selection of proper control groups without cross-contamination [77, 78].
Although some argue that long-term follow-ups are most relevant when studies show short-term effects, follow-ups should be contingent on the methodological quality of the original trial, irrespective of effect [76]. In this review, only seven [44, 45, 51, 54, 55, 62, 72] of 30 studies included longer-term follow-ups. Of those, three studies [51, 55, 72] provided evidence of sustained beneficial effects on FMS 8–12 weeks off intervention (SMDbetween = 1.80, 95% CI 1.03–2.57; SMDbetween = 0.59, 95% CI 0.17–1.01; SMDbetween = 2.67, 95% CI 2.15–3.19), while four studies [44, 45, 54, 62] with follow-up from 3–12 months off intervention did not find lasting effects. This finding supports the opinion of experts in the field that FMS have to be taught, practiced, and reinforced repeatedly as they do not seem to develop and be maintained naturally [26, 31, 32]. However, it may be a challenge to find feasible and effective strategies that lead to a sustained FMS proficiency in view of the fading effects with longer-term interventions and the obvious need for experienced teachers.
In order to help us better understand which intervention strategies may or may not work, why, and for whom, we tried to tease out interventions that were more effective than others by stratifying for target groups, the setting, and characteristics of the interventions. Although trials were only included if they examined typically developing young children, four studies [39, 6062] included disadvantaged children or children that were at risk of delay in FMS competence due to socioeconomic or biological factors. Three studies [39, 60, 61] showed particularly large effect sizes (SMDbetween) for LMS and OCS (2.06–2.76), possibly because these children may have had greater potential to improve FMS competence [31]. On the other hand, interventions targeting a completely healthy population of young children may have the problem of attaining a ceiling effect in FMS proficiency. This could be the case when FMS interventions use an FMS outcome test that is mainly built to differentiate typically developing children from those with a motor deficiency rather than having the potential to differentiate skills within a healthy population [8]. We do not think that this phenomenon has occurred, as in our review, effect sizes for total FMS among those studies that started with mean values below the median at baseline were not different from those that started with above-median values (SMDbetween = 1.01, 95% CI −0.11 to 2.29). A ceiling effect for FMS intervention results may also be more likely when the age of the target group children is close to the upper limit of the validated age range that is covered by the respective test battery [81]. This was not the case in most studies in this review. Firstly, they used scaled scores or percentiles for age categories based on half-yearly or yearly steps to adjust for age and maturational effects; and secondly, they used predominantly the TGMD(-2), which covers ages up to 10 years. Nevertheless, several tests that were also used in the included studies have an upper age limit of 6 years (see ESM Table S2), where a ceiling effect might have played a role. As studies usually report mean ages and SDs, the ceiling effect is difficult to assess, but should indeed be considered in future studies.
Although clear gender differences for FMS exist [15, 87, 88], be it related to differences in physical activity behavior [89] or cultural norms [8] that may foster enhanced FMS in boys (e.g., kicking) or girls (e.g., balancing), the reach and responsiveness of girls and boys in interventions targeting FMS may be different as well. Only a few studies in this review scrutinized gender differences. They reported unequivocal results for total FMS (one study [44] with higher effect sizes in boys and three studies [41, 45, 49] with higher effect sizes in girls), consistently better results for object control skills favoring boys (four studies [51, 54, 61, 62]), but no difference in effects for locomotor skills (three studies [46, 61, 62]). Although recent primary research focusing on FMS indicated that gender differences in FMS existed in favor of the boys [9093], FMS was a predictor of physical activity and fitness in adolescence in both sexes [6, 94]. The few gender-differentiated results in our systematic review did not allow for conclusions to be drawn on whether girls or boys profited more from FMS interventions or whether there is a need for and value to be gained from targeting. So far, both sexes seem to profit from FMS interventions. It may be that boys profit more from interventions targeting object control skills, as consistently stronger effects in favor of boys were found in our review [51, 54, 61, 62]. Perceived competence, whether preceded [95] or as a consequence of actual (motor) competence [96], may have played a role in their motivation to improve object control skills [97, 98]. However, evidence of a gender difference in the association between actual and perceived FMS in young children is lacking [99]. As Barnett et al. [90] suggested, boys may simply obtain more encouragement, positive reinforcement, and stimulation for activities involving object control skills.
Future consideration should therefore be given to the need for a universal or gender-targeted approach, the acceptability and effectiveness of different approaches available for targeting, and the potential positive and negative consequences of either [76].
While the setting (kindergarten versus childcare) did not play a role in effectiveness, effects were stronger when the intervention was provided by an external expert in the field of FMS rather than the usual childcare or kindergarten teachers (Fig. 3c). The integration of experts to build up proper FMS programs and educate childcare and kindergarten teams how to teach FMS [100] seems evident [55]. These experts bring the combined expertise of knowledge about the development and training of FMS and the pedagogic skills needed to foster actual but also perceived FMS [100]. They may also be more skilled at providing the magic intervention ingredient of fun that is identified as a critical component of interventions [101, 102] and that may lead to sustained enjoyment [103, 104] and create a motivational climate for teachers and the children [62]. Promising concepts have been used by the integrated studies attempting to integrate these fundamental psychological and pedagogic principles, including programs that specifically focused on a mastery climate [55], or integrated music and dance [37, 46, 62, 68, 70]. Whatever the concept, an intervention delivering on sustained fun is likely to engage children as well as teachers and promote ongoing involvement, while being enjoyable to deliver [76].

4.2 Strengths and Limitations

Our review has several strengths. We reviewed all intervention studies aimed at increasing motor skills in young children by including a larger range of literature databases than other reviews [26, 31, 32]. The focus was on typically developing young children attending childcare or kindergarten in contrast to mainly school-aged individuals [25, 26] and did not include children with existing motor handicaps or with developmental delays [27, 28]. Teams of reviewers worked both independently and in pairs to select eligible studies, assess risk of bias and extract data. Furthermore, we used the GRADE approach to rate our certainty in the evidence and presented findings with the GRADE evidence profiles. Our results are limited by shortcomings of many of the studies that were eligible for our review and led to our ratings of very low certainty for the intervention effects. Reasons for downgrading included limitations in the study design such as CTs or RCTs with unclear randomization procedures and lack of information regarding allocation concealment, and lack of blinding of outcome assessors and data analysts. Moreover, there was a huge variation in intervention content, duration, and intensity, and often an unknown intervention integrity that did not lead to any sort of dose-response in the outcomes [65]. In addition, there was a large heterogeneity of results. This heterogeneity of results may be explained at least in part by the substantial variation in intervention load and strategies, by the use of a wide range of motor test batteries to measure motor skills [105], or by a high chance of a publication bias. The latter is shown in the consistently asymmetrical funnel plots for the overall FMS and the subscales [106] (ESM Fig. S1) and verified by the Egger’s test [107] (data not shown). The activities in the control group were poorly defined in 19 out of 30 studies, providing room for bias [77, 78]. Further limitations were the exclusion of studies written in languages other than English or German, the skipping of the forward tracking of studies (e.g., looking at studies that cite the included articles), and the conversion of the motor skill test results to the most commonly used test battery among the eligible studies of this review as suggested by GRADE [66]. These applied motor skill test batteries may appear to measure similar constructs and show high correlations in change scores; however, responsiveness of instruments may differ substantially and lead to important between-study heterogeneity [108]. Nevertheless, in our review effect sizes for total FMS were similar in studies that used the reference test (TGMD[-2]) versus those that used another test, suggesting the different responsiveness was not a major problem. Moreover, the use of process-oriented FMS tests that measure how (well) a movement skill is measured or product-oriented FMS assessment batteries in which quantity aspects (e.g., time or distance) are measured provide diverging information [81]. Although the two means of assessment are reasonably related, they also show substantial variation of correlations that may have affected the pooled results in meta-analyses [8, 81].

4.3 Implications for Clinical Practice

From a very young age, proficiency in FMS is related to relevant aspects of health including higher physical activity and physical fitness, reduced obesity, and enhanced social and cognitive skills [11, 109]. Developing motor skills enables the young child to interact with the social and physical environment. As children grow, motor skills are crucial to engage in a large variety of movements and play activities, starting with simple running or throwing a ball to complex physical interactions with peers in the playground or during (organized) sports. Moreover, mutual interactions between motor and cognitive performance and executive functions take place [110, 111] and motor control is used to guide the way in which the surroundings are perceived and processed through ongoing interactions between brain, body, and environment [112]. Thus, improving actual motor skill development, but also perceived motor competence may provide enhanced opportunities for the development of a variety of perceptual, social, and cognitive skills, and may further be influenced in turn by these abilities in iterative interactive cycles [9, 98, 113, 114]. Given these clinically relevant and plausible benefits, improving actual and perceived motor skills should be a priority public health strategy to stimulate physical activity in youth, ideally implemented at the childcare or kindergarten level where a large number of young children can be reached very early [9, 31, 32] and without stigmatization of those that need it most.
Based on this and previous reviews [26, 31, 32], all aspects of FMS should and can be taught in childcare, kindergarten, or similar settings, including object control skills, locomotor skills, balance, or more complex FMS tasks (see Fig. 2 and ESM Figs. S2–4), preferably by the integration of an expert teacher [55] and by intervening over time [26, 31, 32]. Careful emphasis should be placed on maintaining attractive and potent intervention programs for children and teachers as effects may fade with time due to a loss of motivation or insufficient physical stimulus. To progress the field, more theory-driven research [9] needs to be done to tease out the most effective intervention components (length and intensity of sessions, timing, duration, content, context such as with or without music, the integration of dance items), as well as possible effect modifications by age [115], gender [116], obesity [15], physical activity [10], perceived motor competence [97, 117], physical fitness [14], characteristics of the setting [69], and teachers [15].
Scientifically, the best strategy to improve FMS in young children has yet to be determined in future studies that will hopefully address current limitations. The conduct and publication of well-designed evaluations of well-defined interventions using the same standardized assessment tool for young children, preferably combining process- and product-oriented FMS test items [81], with international reference values allowing direct comparison (also of intervention effects) worldwide is crucial to advance the field of FMS promotion in children and help us better understand which intervention strategies may or may not work, why, and for whom [76]. Consequently, this may then lead to realistic and clinically sound implementation strategies to foster FMS proficiency starting at an early age.

5 Conclusion

This review indicates positive effects of childcare- or kindergarten-based interventions on FMS proficiency in young children. Yet, the evidence base is low and we have little confidence in the effect estimate. As the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the reported estimate of the effect, results must be considered with care. Nevertheless, FMS-enhancing programs may have an important role in children attaining motor skill proficiency as the basis for a physically active lifestyle [6] and to profit from a variety of physiological, social, and cognitive health benefits [11, 118]. Future high-quality research is needed to establish certainty in effectiveness of FMS training in young children by searching for optimal programs, looking at dose-response relations and long-term sustainability.
Additional references can be found in the ESM [8, 33, 36, 37, 88, 119132].

Acknowledgements

We greatly thank Dr Gosteli for her professional support in the literature search. We also thank Prof. Puhan for his critical comments and inputs for the review.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding Source

The review was partially funded through a Sinergia grant from the SNF (Grant Number: CRSII3_147673) (http://​p3.​snf.​ch/​project-147673) and by the Jacobs Foundation.

Financial Disclosure

The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

Conflict of Interest

Kristin Wick, Claudia Leeger-Aschmann, Nico D. Monn, Thomas Radtke, Laura V. Ott, Cornelia E. Rebholz, Sergio Cruz, Natalie Gerber, Einat A. Schmutz, Jardena J Puder, Simone Munsch, Tanja H. Kakebeeke, Oskar G. Jenni, Urs Granacher, and Susi Kriemler declare that they have no conflict of interest relevant to this article to disclose.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

© Springer Medizin

Bis 11. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr 50 % sparen!

e.Med Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen der Fachgebiete, den Premium-Inhalten der dazugehörigen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

© Springer Medizin

Bis 11. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr 50 % sparen!

Anhänge

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Gallague D, Ozmun J. Understanding motor development: infants, children, adolescents, adults. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2006. Gallague D, Ozmun J. Understanding motor development: infants, children, adolescents, adults. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2006.
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Haywood K, Getchell N. Life span motor development. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2003. Haywood K, Getchell N. Life span motor development. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2003.
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Lloyd RS, Oliver JL, Faigenbaum AD, Howard R, De Ste Croix MB, Williams CA, et al. Long-term athletic development- part 1: a pathway for all youth. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(5):1439–50.PubMedCrossRef Lloyd RS, Oliver JL, Faigenbaum AD, Howard R, De Ste Croix MB, Williams CA, et al. Long-term athletic development- part 1: a pathway for all youth. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(5):1439–50.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Lloyd RS, Cronin JB, Faigenbaum AD, Haff GG, Howard R, Kraemer WJ, et al. National strength and conditioning association position statement on long-term athletic development. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(6):1491–509.PubMedCrossRef Lloyd RS, Cronin JB, Faigenbaum AD, Haff GG, Howard R, Kraemer WJ, et al. National strength and conditioning association position statement on long-term athletic development. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(6):1491–509.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Payne G, Isaacs D. Human motor development: a lifestyle approach. 8th ed. London: Mayfield Publishing Company; 2012. Payne G, Isaacs D. Human motor development: a lifestyle approach. 8th ed. London: Mayfield Publishing Company; 2012.
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Barnett LM, Van Beurden E, Morgan PJ, Brooks LO, Beard JR. Childhood motor skill proficiency as a predictor of adolescent physical activity. J Adolesc Health. 2009;44(3):252–9.PubMedCrossRef Barnett LM, Van Beurden E, Morgan PJ, Brooks LO, Beard JR. Childhood motor skill proficiency as a predictor of adolescent physical activity. J Adolesc Health. 2009;44(3):252–9.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Burton AW, Miller DE. Movement skill assessment. Minnesota: Human Kinetics; 1998. Burton AW, Miller DE. Movement skill assessment. Minnesota: Human Kinetics; 1998.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Cools W, Martelaer KD, Samaey C, Andries C. Movement skill assessment of typically developing preschool children: a review of seven movement skill assessment tools. J Sports Sci Med. 2009;8(2):154–68.PubMedPubMedCentral Cools W, Martelaer KD, Samaey C, Andries C. Movement skill assessment of typically developing preschool children: a review of seven movement skill assessment tools. J Sports Sci Med. 2009;8(2):154–68.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Robinson LE, Stodden DF, Barnett LM, Lopes VP, Logan SW, Rodrigues LP, et al. Motor competence and its effect on positive developmental trajectories of health. Sports Med. 2015;45(9):1273–84.PubMedCrossRef Robinson LE, Stodden DF, Barnett LM, Lopes VP, Logan SW, Rodrigues LP, et al. Motor competence and its effect on positive developmental trajectories of health. Sports Med. 2015;45(9):1273–84.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Stodden DF, Goodway JD, Langendorfer SJ, Roberton MA, Rudisill ME, Garcia C, et al. A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: an emergent relationship. Quest. 2008;60(2):290–306.CrossRef Stodden DF, Goodway JD, Langendorfer SJ, Roberton MA, Rudisill ME, Garcia C, et al. A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: an emergent relationship. Quest. 2008;60(2):290–306.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Cliff DP, Barnett LM, Okely AD. Fundamental movement skills in children and adolescents: review of associated health benefits. Sports Med. 2010;40(12):1019–35.PubMedCrossRef Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Cliff DP, Barnett LM, Okely AD. Fundamental movement skills in children and adolescents: review of associated health benefits. Sports Med. 2010;40(12):1019–35.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Seefeldt V. Developmental motor patterns: implications for elementary school physical fitness. In: Nadeau CH, Halliwell WR, Newell KC, et al., editors. Psychology of motor behavior and sport. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 1980. p. 314–23. Seefeldt V. Developmental motor patterns: implications for elementary school physical fitness. In: Nadeau CH, Halliwell WR, Newell KC, et al., editors. Psychology of motor behavior and sport. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 1980. p. 314–23.
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Logan SW, Kipling Webster E, Getchell N, Pfeiffer KA, Robinson LE. Relationship between fundamental motor skill competence and physical activity during childhood and adolescence: a systematic review. Kinesiol Rev. 2015;4(4):416–26.CrossRef Logan SW, Kipling Webster E, Getchell N, Pfeiffer KA, Robinson LE. Relationship between fundamental motor skill competence and physical activity during childhood and adolescence: a systematic review. Kinesiol Rev. 2015;4(4):416–26.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Cattuzzo MT, Dos Santos Henrique R, Re AH, de Oliveira IS, Melo BM, de Sousa Moura M, et al. Motor competence and health related physical fitness in youth: a systematic review. J Sci Med Sport. 2016;19(2):123–9.PubMedCrossRef Cattuzzo MT, Dos Santos Henrique R, Re AH, de Oliveira IS, Melo BM, de Sousa Moura M, et al. Motor competence and health related physical fitness in youth: a systematic review. J Sci Med Sport. 2016;19(2):123–9.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Barnett LM, Lai SK, Veldman SL, Hardy LL, Cliff DP, Morgan PJ, et al. Correlates of gross motor competence in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2016;46(11):1663–88.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Barnett LM, Lai SK, Veldman SL, Hardy LL, Cliff DP, Morgan PJ, et al. Correlates of gross motor competence in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2016;46(11):1663–88.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat D’Hondt E, Deforche B, Gentier I, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Vaeyens R, Philippaerts R, et al. A longitudinal analysis of gross motor coordination in overweight and obese children versus normal-weight peers. Int J Obes (Lond). 2013;37(1):61–7.CrossRef D’Hondt E, Deforche B, Gentier I, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Vaeyens R, Philippaerts R, et al. A longitudinal analysis of gross motor coordination in overweight and obese children versus normal-weight peers. Int J Obes (Lond). 2013;37(1):61–7.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat D’Hondt E, Deforche B, Gentier I, Verstuyf J, Vaeyens R, De Bourdeaudhuij I, et al. A longitudinal study of gross motor coordination and weight status in children. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014;22(6):1505–11.CrossRef D’Hondt E, Deforche B, Gentier I, Verstuyf J, Vaeyens R, De Bourdeaudhuij I, et al. A longitudinal study of gross motor coordination and weight status in children. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014;22(6):1505–11.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Bryant ES, Duncan MJ, Birch SL. Fundamental movement skills and weight status in British primary school children. Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14(7):730–6.PubMedCrossRef Bryant ES, Duncan MJ, Birch SL. Fundamental movement skills and weight status in British primary school children. Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14(7):730–6.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Erwin HE, Castelli DM. National physical education standards: a summary of student performance and its correlates. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2008;79(4):495–505.PubMedCrossRef Erwin HE, Castelli DM. National physical education standards: a summary of student performance and its correlates. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2008;79(4):495–505.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Hardy LL, Barnett L, Espinel P, Okely AD. Thirteen-year trends in child and adolescent fundamental movement skills: 1997–2010. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(10):1965–70.PubMedCrossRef Hardy LL, Barnett L, Espinel P, Okely AD. Thirteen-year trends in child and adolescent fundamental movement skills: 1997–2010. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(10):1965–70.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Haapala EA. Cardiorespiratory fitness and motor skills in relation to cognition and academic performance in children—a review. J Hum Kinet. 2013;36:55–68.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Haapala EA. Cardiorespiratory fitness and motor skills in relation to cognition and academic performance in children—a review. J Hum Kinet. 2013;36:55–68.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Gabbard C. A developmental systems approach to the study of motor development. In: Pelligrino LT, editor. Handbook of motor skills: development, impairment and therapy. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publisher; 2009. p. 259–68. Gabbard C. A developmental systems approach to the study of motor development. In: Pelligrino LT, editor. Handbook of motor skills: development, impairment and therapy. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publisher; 2009. p. 259–68.
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Williams HG, Pfeiffer KA, O’Neill JR, Dowda M, McIver KL, Brown WH, et al. Motor skill performance and physical activity in preschool children. Obesity. 2008;16(6):1421–6.PubMedCrossRef Williams HG, Pfeiffer KA, O’Neill JR, Dowda M, McIver KL, Brown WH, et al. Motor skill performance and physical activity in preschool children. Obesity. 2008;16(6):1421–6.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Babic MJ, Morgan PJ, Plotnikoff RC, Lonsdale C, White RL, Lubans DR. Physical activity and physical self-concept in youth: systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2014;44(11):1589–601.PubMedCrossRef Babic MJ, Morgan PJ, Plotnikoff RC, Lonsdale C, White RL, Lubans DR. Physical activity and physical self-concept in youth: systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2014;44(11):1589–601.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Lai SK, Costigan SA, Morgan PJ, Lubans DR, Stodden DF, Salmon J, et al. Do school-based interventions focusing on physical activity, fitness, or fundamental movement skill competency produce a sustained impact in these outcomes in children and adolescents? A systematic review of follow-up studies. Sports Med. 2014;44(1):67–79.PubMedCrossRef Lai SK, Costigan SA, Morgan PJ, Lubans DR, Stodden DF, Salmon J, et al. Do school-based interventions focusing on physical activity, fitness, or fundamental movement skill competency produce a sustained impact in these outcomes in children and adolescents? A systematic review of follow-up studies. Sports Med. 2014;44(1):67–79.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Morgan PJ, Barnett LM, Cliff DP, Okely AD, Scott HA, Cohen KE, et al. Fundamental movement skill interventions in youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2013;132(5):e1361–83.PubMedCrossRef Morgan PJ, Barnett LM, Cliff DP, Okely AD, Scott HA, Cohen KE, et al. Fundamental movement skill interventions in youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2013;132(5):e1361–83.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Pless M, Carlsson M, Sundelin C, Persson K. Effects of group motor skill intervention on five- to six-year-old children with developmental coordination disorder. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2000;12(4):183–9.PubMedCrossRef Pless M, Carlsson M, Sundelin C, Persson K. Effects of group motor skill intervention on five- to six-year-old children with developmental coordination disorder. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2000;12(4):183–9.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Smits-Engelsman BCM, Blank R, Van der Kaay AC, Mosterd-Van der Meijs R, Vlugt-Van den Brand E, Polatajko HJ, et al. Efficacy of interventions to improve motor performance in children with developmental coordination disorder: a combined systematic review and meta-analysis. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013;55(3):229–37.PubMedCrossRef Smits-Engelsman BCM, Blank R, Van der Kaay AC, Mosterd-Van der Meijs R, Vlugt-Van den Brand E, Polatajko HJ, et al. Efficacy of interventions to improve motor performance in children with developmental coordination disorder: a combined systematic review and meta-analysis. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013;55(3):229–37.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Ling J, Robbins LB, Wen F, Peng W. Interventions to increase physical activity in children aged 2–5 years: a systematic review. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2015;27(3):314–33.PubMedCrossRef Ling J, Robbins LB, Wen F, Peng W. Interventions to increase physical activity in children aged 2–5 years: a systematic review. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2015;27(3):314–33.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Mehtälä MA, Saakslahti AK, Inkinen ME, Poskiparta ME. A socio-ecological approach to physical activity interventions in childcare: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:22–33.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Mehtälä MA, Saakslahti AK, Inkinen ME, Poskiparta ME. A socio-ecological approach to physical activity interventions in childcare: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:22–33.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Logan SW, Robinson LE, Wilson AE, Lucas WA. Getting the fundamentals of movement: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of motor skill interventions in children. Child Care Health Dev. 2012;38(3):305–15.PubMedCrossRef Logan SW, Robinson LE, Wilson AE, Lucas WA. Getting the fundamentals of movement: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of motor skill interventions in children. Child Care Health Dev. 2012;38(3):305–15.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Riethmuller AM, Jones R, Okely AD. Efficacy of interventions to improve motor development in young children: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2009;124(4):e782–92.PubMedCrossRef Riethmuller AM, Jones R, Okely AD. Efficacy of interventions to improve motor development in young children: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2009;124(4):e782–92.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(27):iii–x, 1–173. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(27):iii–x, 1–173.
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Bellows LL, Davies PL, Anderson J, Kennedy C. Effectiveness of a physical activity intervention for Head Start preschoolers: a randomized intervention study. Am J Occup Ther. 2013;67(1):28–36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Bellows LL, Davies PL, Anderson J, Kennedy C. Effectiveness of a physical activity intervention for Head Start preschoolers: a randomized intervention study. Am J Occup Ther. 2013;67(1):28–36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Deli E. Implementing intervention movement programs for kindergarten children. J Child Res. 2006;4(1):5–18.CrossRef Deli E. Implementing intervention movement programs for kindergarten children. J Child Res. 2006;4(1):5–18.CrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Donath L, Faude O, Hagmann S, Roth R, Zahner L. Fundamental movement skills in preschoolers: a randomized controlled trial targeting object control proficiency. Child Care Health Dev. 2015;41(6):1179–87.PubMedCrossRef Donath L, Faude O, Hagmann S, Roth R, Zahner L. Fundamental movement skills in preschoolers: a randomized controlled trial targeting object control proficiency. Child Care Health Dev. 2015;41(6):1179–87.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Hamilton M, Goodway J, Haubenstricker J. Parent-assisted instruction in a motor skill program for at-risk preschool children. Adapt Phys Act Q. 1999;16(4):415–26.CrossRef Hamilton M, Goodway J, Haubenstricker J. Parent-assisted instruction in a motor skill program for at-risk preschool children. Adapt Phys Act Q. 1999;16(4):415–26.CrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Hardy LL, King L, Kelly B, Farrell L, Howlett S. Munch and move: evaluation of a preschool healthy eating and movement skill program. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:80–90.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Hardy LL, King L, Kelly B, Farrell L, Howlett S. Munch and move: evaluation of a preschool healthy eating and movement skill program. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:80–90.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Ignico A. Effects of a competency-based instruction on kindergarten children’s gross motor development. Phys Educ. 1991;48:188–91. Ignico A. Effects of a competency-based instruction on kindergarten children’s gross motor development. Phys Educ. 1991;48:188–91.
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Kelly LE, Dagger J, Walkley J. The effects of an assessment-based physical education program on motor skill development in preschool children. Educ Treat Child. 1989;12(2):152–64. Kelly LE, Dagger J, Walkley J. The effects of an assessment-based physical education program on motor skill development in preschool children. Educ Treat Child. 1989;12(2):152–64.
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Krombholz H. The impact of a 20-month physical activity intervention in child care centers on motor performance and weight in overweight and healthy-weight preschool children. Percept Mot Skills. 2012;115(3):919–32.PubMedCrossRef Krombholz H. The impact of a 20-month physical activity intervention in child care centers on motor performance and weight in overweight and healthy-weight preschool children. Percept Mot Skills. 2012;115(3):919–32.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Piek JP, McLaren S, Kane R, Jensen L, Dender A, Roberts C, et al. Does the Animal Fun program improve motor performance in children aged 4–6 years? Hum Mov Sci. 2013;32(5):1086–96.PubMedCrossRef Piek JP, McLaren S, Kane R, Jensen L, Dender A, Roberts C, et al. Does the Animal Fun program improve motor performance in children aged 4–6 years? Hum Mov Sci. 2013;32(5):1086–96.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Reilly JJ, Kelly L, Montgomery C, Williamson A, Fisher A, McColl JH, et al. Physical activity to prevent obesity in young children: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2006;333(7577):1041–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Reilly JJ, Kelly L, Montgomery C, Williamson A, Fisher A, McColl JH, et al. Physical activity to prevent obesity in young children: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2006;333(7577):1041–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Tsapakidou A, Stefanidou S, Tsompanaki E. Locomotor development of children aged 3.5 to 5 years in nursery schools in Greece. Rev Eur Stud. 2014;6(2):1–6.CrossRef Tsapakidou A, Stefanidou S, Tsompanaki E. Locomotor development of children aged 3.5 to 5 years in nursery schools in Greece. Rev Eur Stud. 2014;6(2):1–6.CrossRef
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang JH-T. A study on gross motor skills of preschool children. J Res Child Educ. 2004;19(1):32–43.CrossRef Wang JH-T. A study on gross motor skills of preschool children. J Res Child Educ. 2004;19(1):32–43.CrossRef
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Weiss A, Weiss E, Stehle J, Zimmer K, Heck H, Raab P. The influence of a psychomotor training program on the posture and motor skills of children in pre-school age. Dtsch Z Sportmed. 2004;55(4):101–5. Weiss A, Weiss E, Stehle J, Zimmer K, Heck H, Raab P. The influence of a psychomotor training program on the posture and motor skills of children in pre-school age. Dtsch Z Sportmed. 2004;55(4):101–5.
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Zask A, Adams JK, Brooks LO, Hughes DF. Tooty Fruity Vegie: an obesity prevention intervention evaluation in Australian preschools. Health Promot J Aust. 2012;23(1):10–5. Zask A, Adams JK, Brooks LO, Hughes DF. Tooty Fruity Vegie: an obesity prevention intervention evaluation in Australian preschools. Health Promot J Aust. 2012;23(1):10–5.
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Hurmeric I. The effects of two motor skill interventions on preschool children’s object control skills and their perceived motor competence. USA: ProQuest Information & Learning; 2011. Hurmeric I. The effects of two motor skill interventions on preschool children’s object control skills and their perceived motor competence. USA: ProQuest Information & Learning; 2011.
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Yin Z, Parra-Medina D, Cordova A, He M, Trummer V, Sosa E, et al. Miranos! Look at us, we are healthy! An environmental approach to early childhood obesity prevention. Child Obes. 2012;8(5):429–39.PubMedCrossRef Yin Z, Parra-Medina D, Cordova A, He M, Trummer V, Sosa E, et al. Miranos! Look at us, we are healthy! An environmental approach to early childhood obesity prevention. Child Obes. 2012;8(5):429–39.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Thorlund K, Walter SD, Johnston BC, Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH. Pooling health-related quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis-a tutorial and review of methods for enhancing interpretability. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2(3):188–203.PubMedCrossRef Thorlund K, Walter SD, Johnston BC, Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH. Pooling health-related quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis-a tutorial and review of methods for enhancing interpretability. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2(3):188–203.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Iivonen S, Sääkslahtia A, Nissinenb K. The development of fundamental motor skills of four- to five-year old preschool children and the effects of a preschool physical education curriculum. Early Child Dev Care. 2011;181(3):335–43.CrossRef Iivonen S, Sääkslahtia A, Nissinenb K. The development of fundamental motor skills of four- to five-year old preschool children and the effects of a preschool physical education curriculum. Early Child Dev Care. 2011;181(3):335–43.CrossRef
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Robinson LE, Goodway JD. Instructional climates in preschool children who are at-risk. Part I: object-control skill development. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2009;80(3):533–42.PubMed Robinson LE, Goodway JD. Instructional climates in preschool children who are at-risk. Part I: object-control skill development. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2009;80(3):533–42.PubMed
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Bandura A. Social cognitive theory. In: Vasta R, editor. Annals of child development. Greenwich: JAI Press; 1989. p. 1–60. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory. In: Vasta R, editor. Annals of child development. Greenwich: JAI Press; 1989. p. 1–60.
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997;12(1):38–48.PubMedCrossRef Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997;12(1):38–48.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Zurück zum Zitat Goodway JD, Branta CF. Influence of a motor skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development of disadvantaged preschool children. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2003;74(1):36–46.PubMedCrossRef Goodway JD, Branta CF. Influence of a motor skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development of disadvantaged preschool children. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2003;74(1):36–46.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Goodway JD, Crowe H, Ward P. Effects of motor skill instruction on fundamental motor skill development. Adapt Phys Act Q. 2003;20(3):298–314.CrossRef Goodway JD, Crowe H, Ward P. Effects of motor skill instruction on fundamental motor skill development. Adapt Phys Act Q. 2003;20(3):298–314.CrossRef
62.
Zurück zum Zitat Valentini NC. Mastery motivational climate motor skill intervention: replication and follow-up. USA: ProQuest Information & Learning; 1999. Valentini NC. Mastery motivational climate motor skill intervention: replication and follow-up. USA: ProQuest Information & Learning; 1999.
63.
Zurück zum Zitat Casella G, Berger RL. Statistical inference. 2nd ed. USA: Thomson Learning; 2002. Casella G, Berger RL. Statistical inference. 2nd ed. USA: Thomson Learning; 2002.
64.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1311–6.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1311–6.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD, Walter SD, Patrick D, Furukawa TA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):173–83.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD, Walter SD, Patrick D, Furukawa TA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):173–83.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Zurück zum Zitat Alhassan S, Nwaokelemeh O, Ghazarian M, Roberts J, Mendoza A, Shitole S. Effects of locomotor skill program on minority preschoolers’ physical activity levels. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2012;24(3):435–49.PubMedCrossRef Alhassan S, Nwaokelemeh O, Ghazarian M, Roberts J, Mendoza A, Shitole S. Effects of locomotor skill program on minority preschoolers’ physical activity levels. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2012;24(3):435–49.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Zurück zum Zitat Vidoni C, Hanaki-Martin S, Carter K, Wooten-Burnett S, de Paleville DT. Incorporating a movement skill program into a preschool daily schedule. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2014;85(8):88–9. Vidoni C, Hanaki-Martin S, Carter K, Wooten-Burnett S, de Paleville DT. Incorporating a movement skill program into a preschool daily schedule. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2014;85(8):88–9.
69.
Zurück zum Zitat Bonvin A, Barral J, Kakebeeke TH, Kriemler S, Longchamp A, Schindler C, et al. Effect of a governmentally-led physical activity program on motor skills in young children attending child care centers: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:90–101.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Bonvin A, Barral J, Kakebeeke TH, Kriemler S, Longchamp A, Schindler C, et al. Effect of a governmentally-led physical activity program on motor skills in young children attending child care centers: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:90–101.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
70.
Zurück zum Zitat Derri V, Tsapakidou A, Zachopoulou E, Kioumourtzoglou E. Effect of a music and movement programme on development of locomotor skills by children 4 to 6 years of age. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2001;6(1):16–25.CrossRef Derri V, Tsapakidou A, Zachopoulou E, Kioumourtzoglou E. Effect of a music and movement programme on development of locomotor skills by children 4 to 6 years of age. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2001;6(1):16–25.CrossRef
71.
Zurück zum Zitat Puder JJ, Marques-Vidal P, Schindler C, Zahner L, Niederer I, Bürgi F, et al. Effect of multidimensional lifestyle intervention on fitness and adiposity in predominantly migrant preschool children (Ballabeina): cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;343(7830):d6195.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Puder JJ, Marques-Vidal P, Schindler C, Zahner L, Niederer I, Bürgi F, et al. Effect of multidimensional lifestyle intervention on fitness and adiposity in predominantly migrant preschool children (Ballabeina): cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;343(7830):d6195.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
72.
Zurück zum Zitat Roth K, Kriemler S, Lehmacher W, Ruf KC, Graf C, Hebestreit H. Effects of a physical activity intervention in preschool children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47(12):2542–51.PubMedCrossRef Roth K, Kriemler S, Lehmacher W, Ruf KC, Graf C, Hebestreit H. Effects of a physical activity intervention in preschool children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47(12):2542–51.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Zurück zum Zitat Venetsanou F, Kambas A. How can a traditional Greek dances programme affect the motor proficiency of pre-school children? Res Dance Educ. 2004;5(2):127–38.CrossRef Venetsanou F, Kambas A. How can a traditional Greek dances programme affect the motor proficiency of pre-school children? Res Dance Educ. 2004;5(2):127–38.CrossRef
74.
Zurück zum Zitat Hashemi M, Khameneh NN, Salehian MH. Effect of selected games on the development of manipulative skills in 4–6 year-old preschool girls. Med Sport (Roma). 2015;68(1):49–55. Hashemi M, Khameneh NN, Salehian MH. Effect of selected games on the development of manipulative skills in 4–6 year-old preschool girls. Med Sport (Roma). 2015;68(1):49–55.
75.
Zurück zum Zitat Jones RA, Riethmuller A, Hesketh K, Trezise J, Batterham M, Okely AD. Promoting fundamental movement skill development and physical activity in early childhood settings: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2011;23(4):600–15.PubMedCrossRef Jones RA, Riethmuller A, Hesketh K, Trezise J, Batterham M, Okely AD. Promoting fundamental movement skill development and physical activity in early childhood settings: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2011;23(4):600–15.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Zurück zum Zitat van Sluijs EM, Kriemler S. Reflections on physical activity intervention research in young people—dos, don’ts, and critical thoughts. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13(1):25–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef van Sluijs EM, Kriemler S. Reflections on physical activity intervention research in young people—dos, don’ts, and critical thoughts. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13(1):25–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
77.
Zurück zum Zitat Waters L, Reeves M, Fjeldsoe B, Eakin E. Control group improvements in physical activity intervention trials and possible explanatory factors: a systematic review. J Phys Act Health. 2012;9(6):884–95.PubMedCrossRef Waters L, Reeves M, Fjeldsoe B, Eakin E. Control group improvements in physical activity intervention trials and possible explanatory factors: a systematic review. J Phys Act Health. 2012;9(6):884–95.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Zurück zum Zitat Waters LA, Reeves MM, Fjeldsoe BS, Eakin EG. Characteristics of control group participants who increased their physical activity in a cluster-randomized lifestyle intervention trial. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(11):27.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Waters LA, Reeves MM, Fjeldsoe BS, Eakin EG. Characteristics of control group participants who increased their physical activity in a cluster-randomized lifestyle intervention trial. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(11):27.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
79.
Zurück zum Zitat Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors. CMAJ. 2013;185(4):E201–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors. CMAJ. 2013;185(4):E201–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
80.
Zurück zum Zitat Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P, Altman DG, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P, Altman DG, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
81.
Zurück zum Zitat Logan SW, Barnett LM, Goodway JD, Stodden DF. Comparison of performance on process- and product-oriented assessments of fundamental motor skills across childhood. J Sports Sci. 2016;12:1–8. Logan SW, Barnett LM, Goodway JD, Stodden DF. Comparison of performance on process- and product-oriented assessments of fundamental motor skills across childhood. J Sports Sci. 2016;12:1–8.
82.
Zurück zum Zitat Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Group C. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;04(345):e5661.CrossRef Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Group C. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;04(345):e5661.CrossRef
83.
Zurück zum Zitat Miller WR, Rollnick S. The effectiveness and ineffectiveness of complex behavioral interventions: impact of treatment fidelity. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;37(2):234–41.PubMedCrossRef Miller WR, Rollnick S. The effectiveness and ineffectiveness of complex behavioral interventions: impact of treatment fidelity. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;37(2):234–41.PubMedCrossRef
84.
Zurück zum Zitat Jones RA, Sinn N, Campbell KJ, Hesketh K, Denney-Wilson E, Morgan PJ, et al. The importance of long-term follow-up in child and adolescent obesity prevention interventions. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2011;6(3–4):178–81.PubMedCrossRef Jones RA, Sinn N, Campbell KJ, Hesketh K, Denney-Wilson E, Morgan PJ, et al. The importance of long-term follow-up in child and adolescent obesity prevention interventions. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2011;6(3–4):178–81.PubMedCrossRef
85.
Zurück zum Zitat Faigenbaum AD, Farrell A, Fabiano M, Radler T, Naclerio F, Ratamess NA, et al. Effects of integrative neuromuscular training on fitness performance in children. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2011;23(4):573–84.PubMedCrossRef Faigenbaum AD, Farrell A, Fabiano M, Radler T, Naclerio F, Ratamess NA, et al. Effects of integrative neuromuscular training on fitness performance in children. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2011;23(4):573–84.PubMedCrossRef
86.
87.
Zurück zum Zitat Pedersen AV, Sigmundsson H, Whiting HT, Ingvaldsen RP. Sex differences in lateralisation of fine manual skills in children. Exp Brain Res. 2003;149(2):249–51.PubMedCrossRef Pedersen AV, Sigmundsson H, Whiting HT, Ingvaldsen RP. Sex differences in lateralisation of fine manual skills in children. Exp Brain Res. 2003;149(2):249–51.PubMedCrossRef
88.
Zurück zum Zitat Ulrich DA. Test of gross motor development. 2nd ed. Austin: Pro-Ed; 2000. Ulrich DA. Test of gross motor development. 2nd ed. Austin: Pro-Ed; 2000.
89.
Zurück zum Zitat Cooper AR, Goodman A, Page AS, Sherar LB, Esliger DW, van Sluijs EM, et al. Objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time in youth: the International children’s accelerometry database (ICAD). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:113.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Cooper AR, Goodman A, Page AS, Sherar LB, Esliger DW, van Sluijs EM, et al. Objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time in youth: the International children’s accelerometry database (ICAD). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:113.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
90.
Zurück zum Zitat Barnett LM, van Beurden E, Morgan PJ, Brooks LO, Beard JR. Gender differences in motor skill proficiency from childhood to adolescence: a longitudinal study. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2010;81(2):162–70.PubMed Barnett LM, van Beurden E, Morgan PJ, Brooks LO, Beard JR. Gender differences in motor skill proficiency from childhood to adolescence: a longitudinal study. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2010;81(2):162–70.PubMed
91.
Zurück zum Zitat Goodway JD, Robinson LE, Crowe H. Gender differences in fundamental motor skill development in disadvantaged preschoolers from two geographical regions. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2010;81(1):17–24.PubMedCrossRef Goodway JD, Robinson LE, Crowe H. Gender differences in fundamental motor skill development in disadvantaged preschoolers from two geographical regions. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2010;81(1):17–24.PubMedCrossRef
92.
Zurück zum Zitat Hume C, Okely A, Bagley S, Telford A, Booth M, Crawford D, et al. Does weight status influence associations between children’s fundamental movement skills and physical activity? Res Q Exerc Sport. 2008;79(2):158–65.PubMedCrossRef Hume C, Okely A, Bagley S, Telford A, Booth M, Crawford D, et al. Does weight status influence associations between children’s fundamental movement skills and physical activity? Res Q Exerc Sport. 2008;79(2):158–65.PubMedCrossRef
93.
Zurück zum Zitat Spessato BC, Gabbard C, Valentini N, Rudisil M. Gender differences in Brazilian children’s fundamental movement skill performance. Early Child Dev Care. 2013;183(3):916–23.CrossRef Spessato BC, Gabbard C, Valentini N, Rudisil M. Gender differences in Brazilian children’s fundamental movement skill performance. Early Child Dev Care. 2013;183(3):916–23.CrossRef
94.
Zurück zum Zitat Barnett LM, Van Beurden E, Morgan PJ, Brooks LO, Beard JR. Does childhood motor skill proficiency predict adolescent fitness? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(12):2137–44.PubMedCrossRef Barnett LM, Van Beurden E, Morgan PJ, Brooks LO, Beard JR. Does childhood motor skill proficiency predict adolescent fitness? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(12):2137–44.PubMedCrossRef
95.
Zurück zum Zitat Papaioannou A, Bebetsos E, Theodorakis Y, Christodoulidis T, Kouli O. Causal relationships of sport and exercise involvement with goal orientations, perceived competence and intrinsic motivation in physical education: a longitudinal study. J Sports Sci. 2006;24(4):367–82.PubMedCrossRef Papaioannou A, Bebetsos E, Theodorakis Y, Christodoulidis T, Kouli O. Causal relationships of sport and exercise involvement with goal orientations, perceived competence and intrinsic motivation in physical education: a longitudinal study. J Sports Sci. 2006;24(4):367–82.PubMedCrossRef
96.
Zurück zum Zitat Harter S. Effectance motivation reconsidered toward a developmental model. Hum Dev. 1978;21(1):34–64.CrossRef Harter S. Effectance motivation reconsidered toward a developmental model. Hum Dev. 1978;21(1):34–64.CrossRef
97.
Zurück zum Zitat Barnett LM, Morgan PJ, van Beurden E, Beard JR. Perceived sports competence mediates the relationship between childhood motor skill proficiency and adolescent physical activity and fitness: a longitudinal assessment. Int J Behav Nutr Phys. 2008;8:5. Barnett LM, Morgan PJ, van Beurden E, Beard JR. Perceived sports competence mediates the relationship between childhood motor skill proficiency and adolescent physical activity and fitness: a longitudinal assessment. Int J Behav Nutr Phys. 2008;8:5.
98.
Zurück zum Zitat Robinson LE. The relationship between perceived physical competence and fundamental motor skills in preschool children. Child Care Health Dev. 2011;37(4):589–96.PubMedCrossRef Robinson LE. The relationship between perceived physical competence and fundamental motor skills in preschool children. Child Care Health Dev. 2011;37(4):589–96.PubMedCrossRef
99.
Zurück zum Zitat Liong GHE, Ridgers ND, Barnett LM. Associations between skill perceptions and young children’s actual fundamental movement skills. Percept Mot Skill. 2015;120(2):591–603.CrossRef Liong GHE, Ridgers ND, Barnett LM. Associations between skill perceptions and young children’s actual fundamental movement skills. Percept Mot Skill. 2015;120(2):591–603.CrossRef
100.
Zurück zum Zitat Harter S. The development of competence motivation in the mastery of cognitive and physical skills: is there still a place for joy? In: Roberts G, Landers D, editors. Psychology of motor behaviour and sport. Illinois: Champaign Human Kinetics; 1980. p. 3–29. Harter S. The development of competence motivation in the mastery of cognitive and physical skills: is there still a place for joy? In: Roberts G, Landers D, editors. Psychology of motor behaviour and sport. Illinois: Champaign Human Kinetics; 1980. p. 3–29.
101.
Zurück zum Zitat Loman DG. Promoting physical activity in teen girls: insight from focus groups. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2008;33(5):294–9; quiz 300-1. Loman DG. Promoting physical activity in teen girls: insight from focus groups. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2008;33(5):294–9; quiz 300-1.
102.
Zurück zum Zitat Neumark-Sztainer D, Martin SL, Story M. School-based programs for obesity prevention: what do adolescents recommend? Am J Health Promot. 2000;14(4):232–5, iii. Neumark-Sztainer D, Martin SL, Story M. School-based programs for obesity prevention: what do adolescents recommend? Am J Health Promot. 2000;14(4):232–5, iii.
103.
Zurück zum Zitat Martinez-Vizcaino V, Sanchez-Lopez M, Notario-Pacheco B, Salcedo-Aguilar F, Solera-Martinez M, Franquelo-Morales P, et al. Gender differences on effectiveness of a school-based physical activity intervention for reducing cardiometabolic risk: a cluster randomized trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:154.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Martinez-Vizcaino V, Sanchez-Lopez M, Notario-Pacheco B, Salcedo-Aguilar F, Solera-Martinez M, Franquelo-Morales P, et al. Gender differences on effectiveness of a school-based physical activity intervention for reducing cardiometabolic risk: a cluster randomized trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:154.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
104.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000;25(1):54–67.PubMedCrossRef Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000;25(1):54–67.PubMedCrossRef
105.
Zurück zum Zitat Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins PTJ, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. London: Wiley; 2008. p. 243–96.CrossRef Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins PTJ, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. London: Wiley; 2008. p. 243–96.CrossRef
106.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence-publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1277–82.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence-publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1277–82.PubMedCrossRef
107.
108.
Zurück zum Zitat Puhan MA, Soesilo I, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ. Combining scores from different patient reported outcome measures in meta-analyses: when is it justified? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4(1):94–101.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Puhan MA, Soesilo I, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ. Combining scores from different patient reported outcome measures in meta-analyses: when is it justified? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4(1):94–101.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
109.
Zurück zum Zitat Leonard HC, Hill EL. The impact of motor development on typical and atypical social cognition and language: a systematic review. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2014;19:163–70. Leonard HC, Hill EL. The impact of motor development on typical and atypical social cognition and language: a systematic review. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2014;19:163–70.
110.
Zurück zum Zitat Diamond A. Close interrelation of motor development and cognitive development and of the cerebellum and prefrontal cortex. Child Dev. 2000;71(1):44–56.PubMedCrossRef Diamond A. Close interrelation of motor development and cognitive development and of the cerebellum and prefrontal cortex. Child Dev. 2000;71(1):44–56.PubMedCrossRef
111.
Zurück zum Zitat Roebers CM, Kauer M. Motor and cognitive control in a normative sample of 7-year-olds. Dev Sci. 2009;12(1):175–81.PubMedCrossRef Roebers CM, Kauer M. Motor and cognitive control in a normative sample of 7-year-olds. Dev Sci. 2009;12(1):175–81.PubMedCrossRef
112.
Zurück zum Zitat Smith LB. Cognition as a dynamic system: principles from embodiment. Dev Rev. 2005;25(3–4):278–98.CrossRef Smith LB. Cognition as a dynamic system: principles from embodiment. Dev Rev. 2005;25(3–4):278–98.CrossRef
113.
Zurück zum Zitat Leonard HC. The impact of poor motor skills on perceptual, social and cognitive development: the case of developmental coordination disorder. Front Psychol. 2016;7:311–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Leonard HC. The impact of poor motor skills on perceptual, social and cognitive development: the case of developmental coordination disorder. Front Psychol. 2016;7:311–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
114.
115.
Zurück zum Zitat Ackerman PL. Determinants of individual-differences during skill acquisition—cognitive-abilities and information-processing. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988;117(3):288–318.CrossRef Ackerman PL. Determinants of individual-differences during skill acquisition—cognitive-abilities and information-processing. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988;117(3):288–318.CrossRef
117.
Zurück zum Zitat Barnett LM, Morgan PJ, Van Beurden E, Ball K, Lubans DR. A reverse pathway? Actual and perceived skill proficiency and physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(5):898–904.PubMedCrossRef Barnett LM, Morgan PJ, Van Beurden E, Ball K, Lubans DR. A reverse pathway? Actual and perceived skill proficiency and physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(5):898–904.PubMedCrossRef
118.
Zurück zum Zitat Hardy LL, Reinten-Reynolds T, Espinel P, Zask A, Okely AD. Prevalence and correlates of low fundamental movement skill competency in children. Pediatrics. 2012;130(2):e390–8.PubMedCrossRef Hardy LL, Reinten-Reynolds T, Espinel P, Zask A, Okely AD. Prevalence and correlates of low fundamental movement skill competency in children. Pediatrics. 2012;130(2):e390–8.PubMedCrossRef
119.
Zurück zum Zitat Zachopoulou E, Tsangardidou N, Pickup I, Liukkonen J, Grammatikopoulos V. ‘Early Steps’. Promoting healthy lifestyle and social interaction through physical education activities during preschool years. Thessaloniki: Xristodoulidi Publications; 2007. Zachopoulou E, Tsangardidou N, Pickup I, Liukkonen J, Grammatikopoulos V. ‘Early Steps’. Promoting healthy lifestyle and social interaction through physical education activities during preschool years. Thessaloniki: Xristodoulidi Publications; 2007.
120.
Zurück zum Zitat Ames C. Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational processes. In: Roberts GC, editor. Motivation in sports and exercise. Champaign: Human Kinetics Publishers; 1992. p. 161–76. Ames C. Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational processes. In: Roberts GC, editor. Motivation in sports and exercise. Champaign: Human Kinetics Publishers; 1992. p. 161–76.
121.
Zurück zum Zitat Meyer CS. Minds-in-motion: the maze handbook. Louisville: Minds-in-Motion Inc., Press; 2012. Meyer CS. Minds-in-motion: the maze handbook. Louisville: Minds-in-Motion Inc., Press; 2012.
122.
Zurück zum Zitat Numminen P. APM inventory: manual and test booklet for assessing pre-school children’s perceptual and basic motor skills. Jyväskylä: Likes-tutkimuskeskus; 1995. Numminen P. APM inventory: manual and test booklet for assessing pre-school children’s perceptual and basic motor skills. Jyväskylä: Likes-tutkimuskeskus; 1995.
123.
Zurück zum Zitat Numminen P. The role of imagery in physical education. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä; 1991. Numminen P. The role of imagery in physical education. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä; 1991.
124.
Zurück zum Zitat Bruininks RH, Bruininks BD. Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Pearson; 2005. Bruininks RH, Bruininks BD. Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Pearson; 2005.
125.
Zurück zum Zitat Piek JP, Hands B, Licari MK. Assessment of motor functioning in the preschool period. Neuropsychol Rev. 2012;22(4):402–13.PubMedCrossRef Piek JP, Hands B, Licari MK. Assessment of motor functioning in the preschool period. Neuropsychol Rev. 2012;22(4):402–13.PubMedCrossRef
126.
Zurück zum Zitat Fisher A, Reilly JJ, Kelly LA, Montgomery C, Williamson A, Paton JY, et al. Fundamental movement skills and habitual physical activity in young children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(4):684–8.PubMedCrossRef Fisher A, Reilly JJ, Kelly LA, Montgomery C, Williamson A, Paton JY, et al. Fundamental movement skills and habitual physical activity in young children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(4):684–8.PubMedCrossRef
127.
Zurück zum Zitat Henderson SE, Sugden DA, Barnett AL. Movement assessment battery for children [examiner’s manual]. 2nd ed. London: Pearson Assessment; 2007. Henderson SE, Sugden DA, Barnett AL. Movement assessment battery for children [examiner’s manual]. 2nd ed. London: Pearson Assessment; 2007.
128.
Zurück zum Zitat Krombholz H. Testbatterie zur Erfassung motorischer Leistungen im Vorschulalter MoTB 3-7.Beschreibung, Gütekriterien, Normwerte und ausgewählte Ergebnisse. Saarbrücken: Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek; 2011. Krombholz H. Testbatterie zur Erfassung motorischer Leistungen im Vorschulalter MoTB 3-7.Beschreibung, Gütekriterien, Normwerte und ausgewählte Ergebnisse. Saarbrücken: Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek; 2011.
129.
Zurück zum Zitat Zimmer R, Volkamer M. Motoriktest für vier- bis sechsjährige Kinder (MOT 4-6). 2nd ed. Weinheim: Beltz Test; 1987. Zimmer R, Volkamer M. Motoriktest für vier- bis sechsjährige Kinder (MOT 4-6). 2nd ed. Weinheim: Beltz Test; 1987.
130.
Zurück zum Zitat Hardin BJ, Peisner-Feinberg ES. The learning accomplishment profile—examiner’s manual and technical report. 3rd ed. Lewisville: Kaplan Early Learning Company; 2005. Hardin BJ, Peisner-Feinberg ES. The learning accomplishment profile—examiner’s manual and technical report. 3rd ed. Lewisville: Kaplan Early Learning Company; 2005.
131.
Zurück zum Zitat Kakebeeke TH, Locatelli I, Rousson V, Caflisch J, Jenni OG. Improvement in gross motor performance between 3 and 5 years of age. Percept Mot Skills. 2012;114(3):795–806.PubMedCrossRef Kakebeeke TH, Locatelli I, Rousson V, Caflisch J, Jenni OG. Improvement in gross motor performance between 3 and 5 years of age. Percept Mot Skills. 2012;114(3):795–806.PubMedCrossRef
132.
Zurück zum Zitat Folio MR, Fewell RR. Peabody developmental motor scales. 2nd ed. Austin: Pro-Ed; 2000. Folio MR, Fewell RR. Peabody developmental motor scales. 2nd ed. Austin: Pro-Ed; 2000.
Metadaten
Titel
Interventions to Promote Fundamental Movement Skills in Childcare and Kindergarten: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
verfasst von
Kristin Wick
Claudia S. Leeger-Aschmann
Nico D. Monn
Thomas Radtke
Laura V. Ott
Cornelia E. Rebholz
Sergio Cruz
Natalie Gerber
Einat A. Schmutz
Jardena J. Puder
Simone Munsch
Tanja H. Kakebeeke
Oskar G. Jenni
Urs Granacher
Susi Kriemler
Publikationsdatum
06.04.2017
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Sports Medicine / Ausgabe 10/2017
Print ISSN: 0112-1642
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2035
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0723-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2017

Sports Medicine 10/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.