Background: Motor learning is central to domains such as sports and rehabilitation; however, often terminologies are insufficiently uniform to allow effective sharing of experience or translation of knowledge. A study using a Delphi technique was conducted to ascertain level of agreement between experts from different motor learning domains (i.e., therapists, coaches, researchers) with respect to definitions and descriptions of a fundamental conceptual distinction within motor learning, namely implicit and explicit motor learning. Methods: A Delphi technique was embedded in multiple rounds of a survey designed to collect and aggregate informed opinions of 49 international respondents with expertise related to motor learning. The survey was administered via an online survey program and accompanied by feedback after each round. Consensus was considered to be reached if $70% of the experts agreed on a topic. Results: Consensus was reached with respect to definitions of implicit and explicit motor learning, and seven common primary intervention strategies were identified in the context of implicit and explicit motor learning. Consensus was not reached with respect to whether the strategies promote implicit or explicit forms of learning. Discussion: The definitions and descriptions agreed upon may aid translation and transfer of knowledge between domains in the field of motor learning. Empirical and clinical research is required to confirm the accuracy of the definitions and to explore the feasibility of the strategies that were identified in research, everyday practice and education.
BackgroundThe closing of schools and sports clubs during the COVID-19 lockdown raised questions about the possible impact on children’s motor skill development. Therefore, we compared motor skill development over a one-year period among four different cohorts of primary school children of which two experienced no lockdowns during the study period (control cohorts) and two cohorts experienced one or two lockdowns during the study period (lockdown cohorts).MethodsA total of 992 children from 9 primary schools in Amsterdam (the Netherlands) participated in this study (age 5 – 7; 47.5% boys, 52.5% girls). Their motor skill competence was assessed twice, first in grade 3 (T1) and thereafter in grade 4 (T2). Children in control group 1 and lockdown group 1 were assessed a third time after two years (T3). Motor skill competence was assessed using the 4-Skills Test, which includes 4 components of motor skill: jumping force (locomotion), jumping coordination (coordination), bouncing ball (object control) and standing still (stability). Mixed factorial ANOVA’s were used to analyse our data.ResultsNo significant differences in motor skill development over the study period between the lockdown groups and control groups (p > 0.05) were found, but a difference was found between the two lockdown groups: lockdown group 2 developed significantly better than lockdown group 1 (p = 0.008). While socioeconomic status was an effect modifier, sex and motor ability did not modify the effects of the lockdowns.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 lockdowns in the Netherlands did not negatively affect motor skill development of young children in our study. Due to the complexity of the factors related to the pandemic lockdowns and the dynamic systems involved in motor skill development of children, caution must be taken with drawing general conclusions. Therefore, children’s motor skill development should be closely monitored in the upcoming years and attention should be paid to individual differences.
MULTIFILE
Background: Current use of smartphone cameras by parents create opportunities for longitudinal home-video-assessments to monitor infant development. We developed and validated a home-video method for parents, enabling Pediatric Physical Therapists to assess infants’ gross motor development with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). The objective of the present study was to investigate the feasibility of this home-video method from the parents’ perspective. Methods: Parents of 59 typically developing infants (0–19 months) were recruited, 45 parents participated in the study. Information about dropout was collected. A sequential mixed methods design was used to examine feasibility, including questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. While the questionnaires inquired after the practical feasibility of the home-video method, the interviews also allowed parents to comment on their feelings and thoughts using the home-video method. Results: Of 45 participating parents, 34 parents returned both questionnaires and eight parents agreed to an interview. Parent reported effort by the infants was very low: the home-video method is perceived as similar to the normal routine of playing. The parental effort level was acceptable. The main constraint parents reported was time planning. Parents noted it was sometimes difficult to find the right moment to record the infant’s motor behavior, that is, when parents were both at home and their baby was in the appropriate state. Technical problems with the web portal, reported by 28% of the parents were also experienced as a constraint. Positive factors mentioned by parents were: the belief that the home videos are valuable for family use, receiving feedback from a professional, the moments of one-on-one attention and interaction with their babies. Moreover, the process of recording the home videos resulted in an increased parental awareness of, and insight into, the gross motor development of their infant. Conclusion: The AIMS home-video method is feasible for parents of typically developing children. Most constraints are of a practical nature that can be addressed in future applications. Future research is needed to show whether the home-video method is also applicable for parents with an infant at risk of motor development problems.
