Next Article in Journal
Impact of Fitness Influencers on the Level of Physical Activity Performed by Instagram Users in the United States of America: Analytical Cross-Sectional Study
Next Article in Special Issue
The Associations between 24-Hour Movement Behaviours and Quality of Life in Preschoolers: A Compositional Analysis of Cross-Sectional Data from 2018–2021
Previous Article in Journal
Protective and Vulnerability Factors of Municipal Workers’ Mental Health: A Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Duration of Keeping an Exercise Habit and Mental Illness and Life Attitude among University Students
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 21
10.3390/ijerph192114257
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Developing a Scale for Measuring the Fundamental Movement Skills of Preschool Children in China

by
Yong Chen
1,
Ying Gu
2,*,
Ying Tian
2,
Hyunshik Kim
3,
Jiameng Ma
3,
Xuefeng Jia
4 and
Lianlian Qin
5
1
Department of Physical Education, Huaiyin Normal University, Huai’an 223300, China
2
College of Sports Science, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang 110034, China
3
Faculty of Sports Science, Sendai University, Shibata 9891693, Japan
4
School of Physical Education, Shenyang Sports University, Shenyang 110102, China
5
Spring Kindergarten, Shenbei New District, Shenyang 110034, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(21), 14257; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114257
Submission received: 4 September 2022 / Revised: 26 October 2022 / Accepted: 28 October 2022 / Published: 1 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sports Science with Children’s Lifestyle and Physical Fitness)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Children aged 3–6 years (preschool children hereafter) are in a critical and sensitive period of developing fundamental movement skills (FMS). While appropriate measurement tools can accurately evaluate their FMS development, such a scale is lacking in China. In this study, a suitable scale for measuring the FMS of preschool children in China was developed by combining process- and results-oriented evaluation methods. The subjects of this cross-sectional study included 21 experts and 358 preschool children (188 boys and 170 girls). Based on a literature review, items suitable for measuring the FMS of preschool children in China were selected, and the final measurement scale includes 12 items in three dimensions: physical locomotion skills, object control skills, and physical stability skills. After a battery of tests to assess its suitability, including inter-rater reliability, test/retest reliability, homogeneity, and construct validity, we find that the proposed measurement scale has good reliability, validity, and sensitivity. This scale reflects the development level of the FMS of preschool children in China and can be used to monitor the FMS of this population in the future.

1. Introduction

Movement skills are essential in ensuring survival and promoting physical development through sports [1]. As most movement skills are acquired in early childhood, their development forms the basis for young children’s physical growth as well as behavioral activities such as learning [2]. Hence, they are an essential guarantee for human survival as well as reproduction, adaptation, and transformation of the objective world [3]. Moreover, the correct development of young children’s motor competence can promote physical activity in the future [4]. Therefore, the movement skills learned in this development stage are termed “fundamental movement skills,” or FMS hereafter [5]. FMS, which are non-naturally occurring abilities, can be divided into physical locomotion skills, object control skills, and physical stability skills according to the movement function [6].
Studies have found that good FMS can improve children’s confidence in future sports participation [7,8], and will also lay a good foundation for them to learn complex sports skills in the future [1]. Foweather et al. believe that the development of FMS is crucial to mastering various sports, competitions and dances [9]. However, the lack of appropriate environmental conditions during the learning period of fundamental movements and the lack of proper development of fundamental movements is the reason for the weak movement ability in adulthood [10]. FMS not only plays an important role in children’s aca-demic performance [11] and social cognition [12]. Movement can provide children with cognitive experience, enrich cognitive objects, and enable children to have more opportunities to identify the essential characteristics of things from their external manifestations, and then gain an understanding of the nature of things [13]. However, due to the immaturity of motor development in early childhood, individual cognition mainly comes from perceptual ability [14]. The development of movement skills also affects children’s social adaptability [15]. The key to the interaction between children’s social development and movement lies in the evolution of children’s cognition of self-ability [16]. In the learning atmosphere of various movement skills children can get a positive emotional experience and help them gain self-confidence and success; in the process of movement skill acquisition, help children understand social rules, acquire good social behaviors, and reduce aggressive behaviors [8]. Therefore, the good development of FMS will have an important impact on the physical and mental health of children [17].
FMS development is central to early physical activity [18]. Children gradually master these fundamental abilities through organized education and learning. As these movements involve all body parts, FMS is also the basis for developing sports skills [19,20,21,22]. As noted above, FMS usually develops in early childhood [23,24,25]. Children aged 3–6 years (preschool children hereafter) [26] are in a critical and sensitive period of FMS development [27]. Early childhood FMS development not only affects the learning and development of movement skills after individual growth but also promotes many aspects of one’s own physique, cognition, perception, nervous system development, creative thinking, understanding, self-expression and social ability [28,29,30]. Many FMS are formed before the age of 8 [31]. The development of FMS can correspondingly improve children’s self-confidence and motor proficiency [32]. On the contrary, if the FMS is not recognized and remedied at the right time, Children may have lifelong problems in movement development [33]. Additionally, poor movement ability is usually accompanied by physical weakness [34], with the risk of being overweight and obese [35]. Three to six years old is a critical period for children to learn FMS. This is a critical period for developing children’s sports psychology, sports interest, habits, cognition and comprehensive sports quality. Suppose they receive scientific, systematic and timely training during this period. In that case, children’s sports psychology, sports interest, sports habits, sports cognition and comprehensive sports quality will be optimally developed, and they will also help children develop good sports habits for a lifetime, to benefit young children for life [36]. Therefore, missing this period of FMS development can lead to children’s inactivity, uncoordinated movements, lack of sports confidence, and other problems in the future [12,37]. Thus, proficiency in FMS contributes to children’s physical, cognitive, and social development [38], laying a foundation for forming various movement skills in the future and cultivating lifelong physical exercise habits [39].
In the past 10 years, obesity and physical decline in Chinese adolescents and children have become significant problems that plague the education and sports administrative departments [40]. Insufficient physical activity and static lifestyles in Chinese children and adolescents have become common [41]. In the teaching practice, games are the main content, and the training of motor skills is ignored, which is also the essential reason for “obesity”, “low physical fitness”, “incoordination of movement”, “poor resistance” and “cowardly character” in preschool children in our country. The problem arises [42]. Studies have shown that the development of FMS in Chinese preschool children is still at a low level [43], and there is no assessment tool for fundamental skills based on my country’s national conditions [44]. In September 2019, the Outline for Building a Powerful Country in Sports [45] proposed, “Promote the development of children’s sports, improve the policy and security system, promote the construction of children’s sports projects and children’s sports equipment standard system, and guide the establishment of children’s sports curriculum system and teacher training system”, indicating the importance of the work of early childhood sports. In June 2018, Beijing Sports University officially released the first domestic Guidance manual of Sports Guide for Preschool Children (3–6 years old) (expert consensus version) [46]. The emergence of the “Guide” will further refine the direction and method of children’s physical education and have a more targeted guiding significance for kindergartens and families. In the same year, in August 2018, at the kick-off meeting of the “China Qing-Ling Song Foundation Plei Children and Youth Physical Education and Healthy Development Special Fund”, Kaizen Wang (Vice Chairman of the National Early Childhood Sports Development Committee) published “The ‘hot’ and ‘Need’” keynote speech, clearly pointed out that my country currently lacks children’s special sports skills learning (practice) standards, so there is an urgent need to research children’s sports-related systems and standards [47]. A series of policy documents such as the “Healthy China 2030” Planning Outline [48] and the Youth Sports Activity Promotion Plan [49] have proposed that young people should basically achieve proficiency in 1 or 2 sports skills. On this basis, Wang Jun et al. believe that FMS is the basis of advanced motor skills with sports as the carrier, and the above policy documents are the requirements for forcing children to develop FMS [17].
FMS measurement is widely used in developed countries to determine the growth and development of children and adolescents [50,51]. Globally, scholars have already started to study related aspects [52], and movement ability is being introduced into the field of child health promotion by sports epidemiologists. The establishment of China’s preschool FMS evaluation system is still in its infancy, but FMS has gradually become a new field in the development of the movement of Chinese children [17]. However, at present, the assessment targets in some developed countries are mainly to screen for developmental delays and developmental disorders or to assess the overall development level of children. Theoretical structures also vary. Moreover, most of these commonly used evaluation tools are developed with the Western population as the norm. Due to the objective existence of cultural and ethnic differences between the East and the West, it is doubtful whether these evaluation scales can be directly applied to the physical measurement of Asian children. However, methods and standards for evaluating the FMS of preschool children are lacking in China. Hence, there is a knowledge gap between Chinese and foreign children in this critical period of learning movement skills [40]. Therefore, Chinese researchers have proposed that it is necessary to strengthen com-prehensive multidisciplinary research and develop measurement tools and evaluation standards that align with Chinese children [42,53]. The development of an assessment tool with Chinese children as a data model should be put on the agenda to evaluate the level of FMS in Chinese children [44]. Xin Fei et al. proposed to develop an FMS evaluation tool suitable for Chinese children based on the use of foreign FMS evaluation tools (such as TGMD-2) [54]. On this basis, it is particularly important to develop an evaluation system that conforms to the FMS development of preschool children in my country and to establish a development evaluation model, so as to provide a direct and indirect way for preschool children to achieve lifelong awareness of physical activity.
The current mainstream evaluation methods for children’s movement skills development are developed by scholars in the United States, Germany and other countries based on the data of their children and adolescents’ movement skills, focusing on the application of norm-referenced evaluation in evaluation. However, most assessment tools have the disadvantage that their validity is weakened by cross-cultural assessment. Its data norm cannot be accurately applied to Chinese children [44]. Chinese scholars Jing Li et al. [43] used TGMD-2 and TGMD-3 to test Chinese children and adolescents, they found that the two items of hitting the fixed ball and the underhand toss were derived from the actions of American students hitting a baseball. These two movements have low scores on the test of Chinese children, which are more difficult for Chinese children and are not very suitable for Chinese children [55]. Researchers believe that FMS is divided into three dimensions: physical locomotion skills, object control skills, and physical stability skills [6], while TGMD lacks the evaluation of this dimension of physical stability skills. We hope that through our continuous exploration, with Chinese children as the data norm, compile measurement tools and evaluation standards that are in line with Chinese children. In the selection of test indicators, it is possible to establish an indicator system that can comprehensively and objectively reflect children’s movement development, and develop FMS assessment tools suitable for young children in China.
The National Physical Fitness Measurement Standards (Young Children) [56] formulated by the General Administration of Sport in China in 2003 provide body shape and quality indicators, while the content mainly uses results orientation as the evaluation method. In 2012, the Ministry of Education issued its Guidelines for the Learning and Development of Children Aged 3–6 [57], which proposed developing movement (i.e., children’s physical strength, endurance, balance, sensitivity, coordination, and other activities) as a goal of early childhood health outcomes [58]. However, again, the results orientation of this guide cannot comprehensively evaluate these abilities. By contrast, due to the FMS teaching-oriented educational thought, western countries mainly focus on the process-oriented evaluation standards in the evaluation of children’s physical examination. The advantage of this evaluation standard is that it can test the quality of children’s action performance, and can more accurately evaluate the coordination, balance, and sensitivity of children’s movement process [54]. This provides a good reference value for our early childhood educators to evaluate these indicators in the future.
Therefore, based on the preceding sections, this study develops a scale to measure the development of the FMS of Chinese preschool children that combines a process and a results orientation [44,57]. It contributes to the literature by enriching the existing theories of young children’s physical development in China. Its scale could help strengthen children’s physiques, promote the development of their bodies and minds, and contribute to helping them develop good exercise habits.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Participants

A convenience sample from northeastern Chinese that volunteered to participate in the “Study on the Improvement of Life Habits among Children in East Asia” was selected in consideration of the study’s purpose [59]. In this study, 21 experts and 358 preschool children (188 boys and 170 girls) were selected in China, among whom 60 preschool children (30 boys and 30 girls) participated in the testing of the preliminary measurement scale and 298 preschool children (158 boys and 140 girls) participated in testing the final measurement scale, as illustrated in Table 1. The 21 invited experts included those who investigate young children’s movement skills and psychological development. These experts comprised 13 university teachers (five doctoral supervisors and eight master’s supervisors), six kindergarten principals, and two movement development researchers from the Institute of Child Care. They all had more than 12 years of working experience in movement skills and early childhood education.
The participants were randomly selected from preschool children in five-star kindergartens in northeast China. Informed consent was obtained from and signed by the kindergartens and parents before the test. The study was approved in advance by the Ethics Committee of the Sendai University School of Sports Science (Approval No.: SU29-22). Children’s ages were calculated following the National Physical Fitness Standards Manual (for Young Children) [56].

2.2. Study Procedure

The study Procedure is shown in Figure 1.
First of all, a large number of existing FMS test scales and guidelines, as well as academic research and books related to the development of children’s FMS, are sorted out. Through interviews, symposiums and questionnaires with parents, kindergarten directors and teachers, we learned about the physical and motor development of preschool children, as well as their sports habits, and analyzed the problems in the evaluation system of basic motor skills, such as incomplete evaluation objectives, unreasonable measurement tools, and inappropriate test contents. After summing up the results of the two, we will sift out the evaluation items that do not apply to children aged 3–6 in China due to age, project description, and project scoring standards, experts suggest, China carries out fewer sports and other reasons, and establish a project pool.
Secondly, the Delphi method is used to invite experts and Issue questionnaires to experts for comments. Through data statistics, survey experts’ consensus on the three dimensions, recommendation degree, recommendation divergence and recommendation concentration of each project in the corresponding dimensions. To form the preliminary content of the measurement scale of the FMS evaluation indicators for preschool children.
Thirdly, 60 children aged 3–6 years were measured with the preliminary measurement scale to check the discrimination of the draft scale and the correlation between the items and their dimensions. Unqualified items were removed from the draft project pool to form the final measurement scale.
Finally, 298 preschool children aged 3–6 years were tested with the final measurement scale to check the interrater reliability, retest reliability, homogeneity reliability and construct validity, and the research on FMS evaluation methods for preschool children aged 3–6 years was completed.

2.2.1. Determination of the Items of the Measurement Scale

A lot of literature retrieval work has been carried out in the early stage. First of all, used Web of Science, EBSCO, Science Direct, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP database (China Science and Technology Journal Database) and other search platforms to search for English and Chinese keywords “fundamental movement skills”, “FMS”, “motor skills”, “preschool”, “young children”, “child”, “preschool”, “children’s movement skills” and “children’s fundamental movement skills”. The widely used children’s movement development scale and guide, the relevant academic research on children’s movement development included skills testing tools, classification and definition of children’s basic movement skills, characteristics of children’s movement development and intervention of children’s movement skills were retrieved. Secondly, more than 50 books on children’s motor skills were read. Collect and sort out the retrieved documents and books. Although the original intention, content form, and testing object of these evaluation tools are different, they are all applied to the evaluation of FMS by scholars [56] (Table 2).

2.2.2. Method of Evaluating the Measurement Scale

A results-oriented evaluation is an evaluation carried out after an activity, with the purpose of assessing and identifying the results of the activity [69,70]. Process-oriented evaluation, or formative evaluation, is an evaluation conducted in the middle of an activity [69]. Result-oriented evaluation and process-oriented evaluation come from the formative evaluation and summative evaluation in The Methodology of Evaluation written by Harvard University evaluation expert Michael Scriven in 1967 [71]. The result-oriented evaluation focuses on the “judgment” of results [71]. In contrast, the formative evaluation does not aim at distinguishing the goodness of the evaluation objects, and does not pay attention to the classification of evaluation objects, but pays more attention to how to “improve” [71,72]. Process-oriented evaluation tends to the value orientation of “process” and “development”, which is the conceptual basis of process evaluation [73]. In foreign children’s FMS measurement and assessment, most evaluation methods are based on the process orientation of the quality of children’s movement performance. The test content of “National Physical Fitness Measurement Standard (Young children)” [56], which is a movement performance assessment for young children in my country, focuses on result evaluation to highlight the importance of children’s physical fitness. This result-oriented evaluation standard is simple to operate and intuitive. It reflects the physical health level but lacks the procedural evaluation of the motor development level in early childhood [74]. The evaluation method of this study measures both children’s movement processes and results, thereby offering a comprehensive scale for measuring the FMS development of preschool children by combining a process and results orientation.
For example, there are 4 skill standards for catching a bouncing ball. (1) The palms are tilted slightly upwards to catch the ball; (2) Lean forward as you prepare to catch the ball; (3) Catch the ball 1 time; (4) Catch the ball 2 time. A score of “1” is awarded for each standard that is met, and a score of “0” for failing to meet the standard (Figure 2).

2.2.3. Delphi Method

To build the expert questionnaire, we referred to a large number of FMS measurement scales for young children globally [56,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. Then, according to the requirements of Theory and Application of Scale Preparation [74], we deleted those unsuitable for preschool children in China (i.e., based on age, item description, item scoring standard, advice from experts, few exercises in China). After summarizing and sorting, we included 32 items comprising 13 for physical locomotion skills, ten for object manipulation skills, and nine for body stabilization skills. The 21 experts answered the questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “not recommended” (coded 1) to “highly recommended” (coded 5). After completing the questionnaire, they were invited to rate its quality and provide opinions to help build the preliminary measurement scale. Kendall’ Wa was used to test the consistency of expert opinions.

2.2.4. Building the Measurement Scale

Selected preschool children (three to five times the number of items in the preliminary measurement scale recommended by the experts) were recruited to test the suitability of the preliminary measurement scale. By testing the correlations between the items and their dimensions, those items that did not meet the requirements were eliminated, leaving the final measurement scale. Selected preschool children (ten times the number of items in the final measurement scale) were recruited to test the suitability, inter-rater reliability, test/retest reliability, homogeneity and construct validity of the final measurement scale.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows software (2017, V 25.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used to analyze all the data. The questionnaire data and experts’ opinions were analyzed. In Delphi method, Kendall’s is used to check the consistency of experts’ opinions. The average score, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, cumulative percentage and other methods are used to investigate the recommendation degree, recommendation divergence and recommendation concentration of experts on each item in the corresponding dimensions. p < 0.05 was deemed significant. The average score was more than 4, the coefficient of variation (CoV) was less than 0.25, and the cumulative percentage (i.e., the proportion of scores of 4 and 5) was more than 70%.
The average score, standard deviation, CoV, and Spearman correlation test were then used to analyze the test results of the preliminary measurement scale. Those items with high sensitivity that were significantly related were selected (p < 0.01 indicated statistical significance). To distinguish subjects with different levels, the evaluation criteria of items needed high sensitivity; hence, the CoV of subjects’ scores should not be too low. According to the previous screening criteria for scale items [75,76], items with a CoV of less than 20% indicated poor discrimination and low sensitivity.
The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the final measurement scale’s inter-rater reliability and test/retest reliability. The Cronbach’s α coefficient was used to test the homogeneity of the scale. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s spherical tests were used to test the scale’s construct validity. Here, p < 0.05 was again deemed significant.

3. Results

3.1. Determination of the Preliminary Content of the Measurement Scale

The preliminary measurement scale contained 32 FMS items in line with the physical development of preschool children in China. It included physical locomotion skills (13 items): straight line running, shuttle running, changeover running, one-foot jump, standing long jump, front slide, sidestep slide, running jump, jumping continuously with both feet sideways, stride jump, jumping jacks, synchronized jump on the same side, and jumping obstacle; object control skills (ten items): bouncing a ball in place, catching a ball with both hands, kicking a ball, throwing a ball up with both hands, hitting a ball with one hand over the shoulder, bocce ball, overhand pitching, catching a bouncing ball, holding a ball and walking, and horizontal racket hitting fixed table tennis; and physical stability skills (9 items): standing on one foot, hanging on a horizontal bar, walking on a balance beam, straight walking, standing back and forth on two feet, squatting, backward straight walking, forward rolling, and tiptoe walking.
To analyze the consistency of the 21 experts’ scores on the questionnaire, Kendall’s Wa analysis [77] was carried out on the collected data (Table 3), indicating that the opinions of the experts were unified. Hence, the collected questionnaire data could be used for subsequent analysis and processing.

3.2. Formulation of the Measurement Scale Items

Table 4 illustrates the questionnaire results for all 32 items. According to the analysis results and statistical requirements [78], those items with an average score of more than 4, a CoV of less than 0.25, and a cumulative percentage of more than 70% were selected to test the preliminary content of the measurement scale.
Based on the criteria above, Table 4 demonstrates that, of the physical locomotion skills, straight line running, shuttle running, one-foot jump, standing long jump, sidestep slide, and stride jump (six items) were chosen. Of the object control skills, bouncing a ball in place, catching a ball with both hands, kicking a ball, hitting a ball over the shoulder with one hand, and catching a bouncing ball (five items) were chosen. Of the physical stability skills, standing on one foot and walking on a balance beam (two items) were chosen.
To test the suitability of the 13 items of the preliminary measurement scale, preschool children that number 3–5 times the items of the scale should be selected for the test. Therefore, 60 preschool children were selected to test the preliminary measurement scale. The children’s performance in the test was scored, and items with certain usage situations, unclear descriptions, language differences, and unsatisfactory data were modified to form a measurement scale that can accurately and quickly measure the FMS development level of preschool children.
Table 5 illustrates the results of testing the preliminary measurement scale. First, since the measurement scale needs a reasonable degree of discrimination to distinguish subjects with different levels, the measurement items must be highly sensitive (i.e., the CoV of subjects’ scores should not be too low). Therefore, as noted above, we excluded items with a CoV of less than 20%, owing to their poor discrimination and low sensitivity. Among the 13 items in the preliminary measurement scale, shuttle running’s CoV was less than 20%, so it could not be included in the final measurement scale. Hence, the final measurement scale comprised 12 items. The items in the physical locomotion skills included straight line running, stride jump, one-foot jump, sidestep slide, and standing long jump. The items in the object control skills included bouncing a ball in place, catching a ball with both hands, kicking a ball, hitting a ball with one hand over the shoulder, and catching a bouncing ball. The items in the physical stability skills included standing on one foot and walking on a balance beam.

3.3. Testing the Final Measurement Scale

To test the final measurement scale, preschool children that number more than 20 times the 12 test items should be selected (i.e., more than 260 children); hence, 300 preschool children were randomly selected for this test. Two children did not complete the test for physical reasons. The test results were used to examine inter-rater reliability, test/retest reliability, homogeneity, and construct validity (Table 6).

3.3.1. Testing the Inter-Rater Reliability of the Final Measurement Scale

Two teachers scored the 298 preschool children for all the test items, and a Spearman correlation test was used to analyze the scoring data. The results demonstrated that the highest correlation coefficient was 0.975, and the lowest was 0.844. All the items were significant at the 1% level, indicating that the different raters provided a unified implementation of the test content and method standards.

3.3.2. Testing the Test/Retest Reliability of the Final Measurement Scale

Four weeks after the completion of the final measurement scale test, 36 children (more than 10% of the sample) of different ages were selected from the original 298 preschool children for the retest (six boys and six girls each aged 36–47 months, 48–59 months, and 60–72 months). The Spearman correlation coefficients of all the items were at least 0.7. The highest was 0.956, and the lowest was 0.835, and all the items had a significant correlation at the 1% level. The results indicated that the final measurement scale had high test/retest reliability, the two measurements of individuals were similar, and the evaluation method and standard had high stability.

3.3.3. Testing the Homogeneity of the Final Measurement Scale

The Cronbach’s α coefficient was used to test the homogeneity of the scale. A Cronbach’s α coefficient of more than 0.7 indicates adequate reliability, and one ranging from 0.7 to 0.8 means high reliability. In this study, the lowest Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.812, and the highest was 0.854, which were both above 0.8. This indicated that the final measurement scale had homogeneity. That is, its internal consistency was very good.

3.3.4. Testing the Validity of the Final Measurement Scale

The KMO and Bartlett’s spherical tests were used to evaluate the results of the final measurement scale. Principal component analysis was used to extract the factors with eigenvalues above 1. The maximum variance orthogonal rotation method was then used to calculate the communality variance of each item in the scale and its factor loading.
Figure 3 illustrates that KMO statistic was 0.872, above the threshold of 0.8, and that the significance value of Bartlett’s spherical test was 0.000 (p < 0.001), making a factor analysis suitable. the corresponding common factors of each item were all greater than 0.3, the minimum factor loading was 0.419, and the maximum factor loading was 0.784. Hence, the scale had good construct validity.

4. Discussion

Given the lack of an FMS measurement scale for preschool children in China, this study developed an appropriate 12-item scale for evaluating the development of Chinese preschool children’s FMS that combines a process-oriented and a results-oriented evaluation. This scale can comprehensively and objectively evaluate the FMS development of preschool children and lay a foundation for helping them develop good sports habits, form various movement skills, and increase their awareness of physical exercise. Compared with current measurement scales globally, our proposed scale presents several novelties, as discussed next.

4.1. Project Analysis

The FMS measuring scale in this paper has been described in a large number of measuring scales or guidelines, and the movements involved in different literature have been extracted in the compilation process. Straight line running has been described in TGMD-2, Guidelines for Learning and Development of Chinese Children aged 3–6 Years (2010), PGMQS, and National Physical Fitness Measurement Standards (Toddler section). One-foot jump, standing long jump, and stride jump have been involved in TGMD-2 and PGMQS. The movements of bouncing a ball in place, kicking a ball and catching a ball with both hands have been reported in TGMD-2, Guidelines for Learning and Develop-ment of Chinese Children aged 3–6 Years (2010), PGMQ, BOTMP-2, CDCC, etc. Walking on a balance beam and standing on one foot are involved in the Guidelines for Learning and Development of Chinese Children aged 3–6 Years (2010), M-ABC, PGMQS, BOTMP-2, CDCC and KTK.

4.2. Expert Analysis

The 21 experts recruited for this study recommended the questionnaire items based on their experience from several aspects, such as whether the item reflects the development level of young children’s movement skills, whether it is safe for young children in the test process, whether the test equipment is easy to operate, and whether the test scoring standard is simple and easy to understand. For example, the object control test involved throwing a ball up and catching a bouncing ball with both hands, and the throwing and dropping motions were simple. Focus was placed on the location and timing of the catch when the ball fell or bounced, but the direction of the throw was different; hence, experts believed that either item was desirable. Hitting a ball with one hand over the shoulder and overhand pitching was repetitive, so the experts suggested omitting either from the final measurement scale.
Likewise, several movements in the physical stability skills items were similar and related to balance. Therefore, the experts suggested removing front and back foot standing. Walking on a balance beam and straight-line walking were repetitive, and therefore, it was recommended to use only one. Moreover, tiptoe walking was also suggested to be removed. Shuttle running and changeover running were similar physical locomotion skills. Hanging on the horizontal bar and forward rolling seemed inappropriate for physical stability skills, so they were suggested to be removed.

4.3. Difference Analysis with Existing FMS Scales

4.3.1. Evaluation Method

Chinese children’s physical fitness tests are currently based on the results-oriented National Physical Fitness Standards (Young Children) formulated by the General Administration of Sport in China in 2003 and the Guidelines for the Learning and Development of Children Aged 3–6 promulgated by the Ministry of Education in 2012. By contrast, TGMD, developed by U.S. scholars, is a process-oriented evaluation for children that can test the quality of their movement. The present study proposes both a process-oriented and a results-oriented evaluation method to develop a suitable tool for measuring the development of the FMS of Chinese children.

4.3.2. Functional Setting

Existing scales are mainly screening tools with specific uses. For example, KTK assesses children’s movement ability to screen those with brain damage and behavioral disorders. M-ABC is a screening tool for assessing developmental coordination disorders in children. BOTMP is mainly used to measure movement deficits in children and disability problems in adolescents, such as cerebral palsy, developmental coordination disorder, attention deficit disorder, and autism. By contrast, the proposed scale examines the development of the FMS of all preschool children.

4.3.3. Age Range

Some international scales examine an extensive age range and are thus unsuitable for evaluating preschool children in China (i.e., children aged 3–6 years who have not yet entered primary school). For example, BOTMP applies to children aged 4–14, M-ABC is suitable for ages 4–12, and KTK is suitable for ages 5–14. Hence, the proposed scale can accurately evaluate the FMS development of preschool children.

4.3.4. Test Content

The contents of the test were expanded to include hitting the ball with one hand and catching a bouncing ball. Additionally, hitting a ball with one hand increased the requirement of throwing accuracy compared with the overhand throwing of TGMD-2.

4.4. Project Rating

To score the FMS of preschool children, each project must carry out two tests. Scoring for each item consists of 4–5 standards. A score of “1” is awarded for each standard that is met, and a score of “0” for failing to meet the standard. After the evaluation, the scale could provide each test’s original, standard, and total scores. Then, the standard score is converted, consistent with the TGMD-2 test standard.

4.5. Adaptability to Chinese Culture

First of all, the actual measurement indicators of Chinese children were selected according to the physical development of Chinese children. In the selection of test indicators, an index system can be established which can reflect the development of children’s movements comprehensively and objectively. At present, most of these evaluation tools are developed with the western population as the norm. Due to the objective existence of cultural and racial differences between the East and the West, it is doubtful whether these evaluation scales can be directly applied to the physical fitness measurement of Asian children.
Secondly, in the development of measurement tools, specific measurement methods should be selected according to different types of movements (large muscle group movements and fine movements). According to the rules of Chinese children’s bone and body development, the model was built based on the data of Chinese children, and the self-evaluation criteria were set.
Thirdly, when evaluating children’s movement development levels, it is necessary to establish diversified and differentiated evaluation criteria by referring to children’s movement development norms at different ages as well as children’s physical constitution, nutritional status, living environment and other factors.
Fourth, based on the comprehensive analysis and summary of relevant literature, the item pool of this scale was established by extracting the basic movements of children, combining with the characteristics of China, and adding the relevant movements that are more in line with the educational background of preschool children in China, such as “racket horizontal hitting fixed table tennis”. Although it was not the final test item, the authors hope that the test content will be with more and more Chinese characteristics.

4.6. Limitations

Since this project was approved in March 2020, due to the impact of COVID-19, the collection of research samples originally planned to cover the whole country was restricted. Due to the strict closed management adopted by some kindergartens and early childhood institutions because of the national plan, the test samples were compressed. The subject focuses on developing test indicators for preschool children in Northeast China, and there may be errors when used in other areas. To this end, it is necessary to continue research on the subject step by step and complete the measurement and sampling of children with various demographic characteristics across the country (Children with different regions, including urban and rural areas, physique, nutritional status, living environment, economic characteristics, etc.) to improve the effectiveness of the scale.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we built a suitable 12-item scale for measuring the FMS of preschool children in northeast China. The proposed scale comprised three dimensions: physical locomotion skills (five items), object control skills (five items), and physical stability skills (two items). An inter-rater reliability test, a test/retest test, a homogeneity test, and a construct validity test were then conducted on the final measurement scale. The results demonstrated that the implementation of the test content and method standard was relatively uniform among the raters, the measurement method and standard had high stability, and the internal consistency of the measurement content and construct validity were very good. Hence, the measurement scale constructed in this study is verified as an effective tool for measuring the FMS of preschool children in northeast China.
The proposed scale has several practical applications. First, understanding the FMS development level of preschool children can shed light on their physical condition and be used as an essential indicator for evaluating and monitoring their physical development. Therefore, monitoring FMS development is of great significance in early childhood education. Second, measuring and understanding FMS development regularly throughout the growth stage of preschool children can help demonstrate weak aspects in a timely manner and allows for interventions to adjust the educational content of the next stage. Finally, it is necessary to adjust the educational process according to the measurement results, optimize educational efficiency, and comprehensively improve the physical development level of preschool children in this sensitive period of their movement skills development. In the future, based on improving the fundamental movement skills evaluation scale for Chinese children, research should be conducted on promoting motor skills to preschool children’s physique and teaching movement skills to preschool children.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.C. and Y.G.; methodology, Y.C. and Y.T.; formal analysis, Y.C.; data curation, Y.G. and H.K.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.C. and Y.G; writing—review and editing, Y.C. and Y.G.; project administration, Y.T. and H.K.; supervision, J.M., X.J. and L.Q.; resources, Y.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Youth Fund Project for the Humanities and Social Sciences, a funding project of the Ministry of Education of China (Grant Number: 20yjc890007) “Research and development of evaluation index for fundamental movement skills of preschool children (3–6 years old), and supported by JSPS KAKENHI (Grant Number: JP 21K11555) and the International Joint Research Project in Sendai University (Grant Number: 2018-0025).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and all the procedures were carried out with the adequate understanding and written consent of the subjects. The study received prior approval from the Sendai University Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Sports Science (approval no.: SU29-22).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data provided in this study are available upon request by the corresponding author. The data were not made public because they involved the personal privacy issues of the participants.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chongde, L. Developmental Psychology; People’s Education Press: Beijing, China, 1995; pp. 150–156. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  2. Ying, Z. An empirical study on children’s physical activity content from the perspective of movement development. Chin. J. Beijing Sport Univ. 2012, 3, 133–140. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  3. Jing, L.; Guoli, L. Large muscle group development test (TGMD-2) study. Chin. J. Chin. Sports Sci. Technol. 2005, 41, 105–107, 114. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  4. Ying, Z. Research on the development characteristics of basic movements of children aged 3–6 in China: Taking the development of throwing movements of children in a certain kindergarten in Beijing as an example. Chin. J. Chin. Sports Sci Technol. 2013, 49, 92–102. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  5. Gallahue, D.L.; Frances, C.D. Developmental Physical Education for All Children, 4th ed.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  6. Barnett, L.M.; Stodden, D.; Cohen, K.E.; Smith, J.J.; Lubans, D.; Lenoir, M.; Iivonen, S.; Miller, A.D.; Laukkanen, A.; Dudley, D.; et al. Fundamental movement skills: An important focus. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2016, 35, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gagen, L.M.; Getchell, N. Using ‘constraints’ to design developmentally appropriate movement activities for early childhood education. Early Child. Educ. J. 2006, 34, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yidan, Y. Analysis of the Importance of Physical Exercise on the Psychological Development of Preschool Children. Sports 2011, 10, 7–8. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  9. Foweather, L.; Knowles, Z.; Ridgers, N.D.; O’Dwyer, M.V.; Foulkes, J.D.; Stratton, G. Fundamental movement skills in relation to weekday and weekend physical activity in preschool children. J. Sci. Med. Sport. 2015, 18, 691–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gallahue, D.L. Developmental Physical Education for Today’s Children, 3rd ed.; Dubuque A: Brown & Benchmark, MI, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  11. Jaakkola, T.; Hillman, C.; Kalaja, S.; Liukkonen, J. The associations among fundamental movement skills, self-reported physical activity and academic performance during junior high school in Finland. J. Sport. Sci. 2015, 33, 1719–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lubans, D.R.; Morgan, P.J.; Cliff, D.P.; Barnett, L.M.; Okely, A.D. Fundamental movement skills in children and adolescents: Review of associated health benefits. J. Sport. Med. 2010, 40, 1019–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Shiying, W. A Course in the History of Foreign Education; People’s Education Press: Beijing, China, 1999. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  14. Lepecq, J.; Gapenne, O. Sensorimotor organization and cognition in infancy: Some francophone contributions. Cah. Psychol. Cogn. 1995, 14, 121–150. [Google Scholar]
  15. Qi, D.; Sha, T. Movement and Psychological Development; Beijing Normal University Press: Beijing, China, 2004. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  16. Ming, Z. Tracking the Track of Maturity—Developmental Psychology; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2007. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  17. Jun, W.; Yujun, C.; Sitong, C. Review, comparison and enlightenment of different theories on the intervention of basic motor skills. Chin. J. Sport. Sci. 2020, 40, 72–82. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  18. Jones, R.A.; Riethmuller, A.; Hesketh, K.; Trezise, J.; Batterham, M.; Okely, A.D. Promoting fundamental movement skill development and physical activity in early childhood settings: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 2011, 23, 600–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wick, K.; Leeger-Aschmann, C.S.; Monn, N.D.; Radtke, T.; Ott, L.V.; Rebholz, C.E.; Cruz, S.; Gerber, N.; Schmutz, E.A.; Puder, J.J.; et al. Interventions to promote fundamental movement skills in childcare and kindergarten: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Sport. Med. 2017, 47, 2045–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Lloyd, R.S.; Oliver, J.L.; Faigenbaum, A.D.; Howard, R.; Croix, M.B.D.S.; Williams, C.A.; Best, T.M.; Alvar, B.A.; Micheli, L.J.; Thomas, D.P.; et al. Long-term athletic development-part 1: A pathway for all youth. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 1439–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lloyd, R.S.; Cronin, J.B.; Faigenbaum, A.D.; Haff, G.G.; Howard, R.; Kraemer, W.J.; Micheli, L.J.; Myer, G.D.; Oliver, J.L. National strength and conditioning association position statement on long-term athletic development. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 1491–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cliff, D.; Okely, A.; Smith, L.M.; McKeen, K. Relationships between fundamental movement skills and objectively measured physical activity in preschool children. J. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 2009, 21, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Metcalfe, J.; Clark, J.E. The mountain of motor development: A metaphor. Motor Dev. Resear. Rev. 2002, 2, 183–202. [Google Scholar]
  24. Stodden, D.F.; Goodway, J.D.; Langendorfer, S.J.; Roberton, M.A.; Rudisill, M.E.; Garcia, C.; Garcia, L.E. A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship. Quest 2008, 60, 290–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Clark, J.E. From the beginning: A developmental perspective on movement and mobility. Quest 2005, 57, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yun, Z. Discussion on test methods and developmental characteristics of motor coordination ability of children aged 3–6 years old. Chin. J. Xi’an Inst. Phys. Educ. 2010, 27, 603–606. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  27. Leahy, R.L.; Harter, S. The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. J. Cogn. Psychother. 2001, 15, 383–384. [Google Scholar]
  28. BI0 International Organization Textbook Compilation Group. Developmental Psychology; People’s Daily Press: Beijing, China, 2007; p. 113. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  29. Lefrancois, G.R.; Jinzhi, W.; Xiangzhi, M. Children—Children’s Psychological Development; Peking University Press: Beijing, China, 2004; p. 413. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  30. Folio, M.R.; Fewell, R.R.; Ming, L.; Zhen, H. Peabody Motor Development Scale; Peking University Medical Press: Beijing, China, 2006. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  31. Payne, V.G.; Isaacs, L.D. Human Motor Development: A Lifespan Approach; Mc Graw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 13–25. [Google Scholar]
  32. Goodway, J.D.; Crowe, H.; Ward, P. Effects of motor skill instruction on fundamental motor skill development. Adapt. Phys. Act. Q. 2003, 20, 298–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Clark, J.E.; Whitall, J. What is motor development? The lessons of history. Quest 1989, 41, 183–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chia, L.C.; Guelfi, K.J.; Licari, M.K. A comparison of the oxygen cost of locomotion in children with and without developmental coordination disorder. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2009, 52, 251–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Silman, A.; Cairney, J.; Hay, J.; Klentrou, P.; Faught, B.E. Role of physical activity and perceived adequacy on peak aerobic power in children with developmental coordination disorder. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2011, 30, 672–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hongbo, Y. Talents, Education, Critical Period; China Population Press: Beijing, China, 2014. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  37. Shengkou, W.; Yan, X.; Huihui, W. Research on the development and design of prosodic physical activities in children from the perspective of movement development. Chin. J. Beijing Sport Univ. 2017, 40, 89–96. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  38. Payne, V.G.; Isaacs, L.D. Human Motor Development: A Lifespan Approach; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  39. Greg, P.; Peixin, G.; Guoli, L. Introduction to Human Motor Development; People’s Education Press: Beijing, China, 2008; pp. 20–135. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  40. Rui, M.; Heng, S. Effects of fundamental movement skills development on physical activity and health of children. Chin. J. Sport. Sci. 2017, 37, 54–61, 97. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  41. Peijie, C. Physical activity, physical fitness, and body mass index in the Chinese child and adolescent populations: An update from the 2016 Physical Activity and Fitness in China—The Youth Study. J. Sport Health Sci. 2017, 6, 381–383. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ziping, Z.; Liu, L.; Peifu, Q. Research on the fundamental movement skills of preschool children abroad—Also on the enlightenment to the physical education of young children in my country. J. Jilin Inst. Phys. Educ. 2018, 34, 43–48. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  43. Jing, L.; Yucui, D. A comparative study on the development of basic motor skills of 3~10 years old children. Chin. Sport. Sci. Technol. 2013, 49, 129–132. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  44. Bo, L.; Yang, L.; Sitong, C.; Lingfen, T.; Jiangang, S.; Jintao, H.; Danqing, Z. Study on fundamental movement skills assessment tools for children and adolescents and its enlightenment. Chin. J. Shanghai Univ. Sport. 2018, 42, 8–16, 28. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  45. State Council of the People’s Republic of China. Notice on the Outline of Building a Sports Powerful Country. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2019-09/02/content_5426485.htm (accessed on 22 August 2020). (In Chinese)
  46. Dongmei, L.; Xing, Z.; Jiebo, C. Guidance Manual of Sports Guide for Preschool Children (3–6 Years Old); Science Press: Beijing, China, 2021. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  47. Kaizhen, W.; Yi, R. Expert Opinion: “Heat” and “Need” of the Development of China’s Infant Sports. Available online: https://www.sohu.com/a/249325205_498676 (accessed on 10 April 2020). (In Chinese).
  48. Central Committee of the CPC; State Council of the People’s Republic of China. “Healthy China 2030” Planning Outline. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2016-10/25/content_5124174.htm (accessed on 10 April 2020). (In Chinese)
  49. Youth Sports Promotion Program. Available online: https://www.sport.org.cn/search/system/gfxwj/qsnty/2018/1206/195012.html (accessed on 10 April 2020). (In Chinese).
  50. Bushnell, E.W.; Boundreau, J.P. Motor development and the mind: The potential role of motor abilities as a determinant of aspects of perceptual development. J. Child Dev. 2010, 64, 1005–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gallahue, D.L.; Ozmun, J.C. Understanding Motor Development: Infants, Children, Adolescents, Adults; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lei, Z. Research progress on motor development of children in China. Chin. J. World Sport. 2019, 6, 1–2. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  53. Dapeng, Z. Theory, method, evaluation and development trend of children’s movement development. Chin. J. Nanjing Univ. Phys. Educ. 2015, 14, 15–21. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  54. Fei, X.; Yujun, C.; Ran, B.; Kai, W.; Sitong, C.; Yang, L.; Xiaojiao, S. A systematic review of intervention research on children’s fundamental movement skills in foreign countries. Chin. J. Sport. Sci. 2019, 39, 83–97. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  55. Chen, G.; Dongmei, L.; Ronghui, W. Development of a motor development evaluation scale for large muscle group of preschool children aged 3–6 years. Sport. Sci. 2018, 38, 46–53. [Google Scholar]
  56. State General Administration of Sports. National Physical Fitness Test Standard Manual: Young Children; People’s Sports Press: Beijng, China, 2003; pp. 1–12. (In Chinese)
  57. Ministry of Education. Guide to Learning and Development for Children Aged 3–6. Available online: http://www.edu.cn/xueqian779/20121016/t20121016856526.Shtml (accessed on 10 April 2021). (In Chinese)
  58. Shengkou, W.; Guiping, J.; Shugang, L.; Weitong, L.; Lin, L. An empirical study on prosodic physical activity promoting gross motor development in children from the perspective of motor development. Chin. J. Beijing Univ. Sport. 2015, 38, 98–105. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  59. Kim, H.; Ma, J.; Lee, S.; Gu, Y. Change in Japanese children’s 24-hour movement guidelines and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 22972. [Google Scholar]
  60. Zimmer, R.; Volkamer, M. Motor Test Für Vier-Bissechsjarige Kinder (Manual); Beltztest: Weinheim, Germany, 1987; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  61. Folio, M.R.; Fewell, R.R. Peabody Developmental Motor Scales 2; Pro-ed Publisher: Austin, TX, USA, 2000; pp. 12–13. [Google Scholar]
  62. Wang, Y.P.; Su, C.Y. Reliability and responsiveness of the Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency-second edition in children with intellectual disability. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2009, 30, 847–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ulrich, D.A. Test of Gross Motor Development (Second Edition) Examiner’s Manual; Pro-ed Publisher: Austin, TX, USA, 2000; pp. 3–14. [Google Scholar]
  64. Schulz, J.; Henderson, S.E.; Sugden, D.A.; Barnett, A.L. Structural validity of the Movement ABC-2 test: Factor structure comparisons across three age groups. J. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2011, 32, 1361–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Vles, J.; Kroes, M.; Feron, F. MMT: Maastrichtse Motoriek Test; PITS: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sun, S.-H.; Sun, H.-L.; Zhu, Y.-C.; Huang, L.-C.; Hsieh, Y.-L. Concurrent validity of preschooler gross motor quality scale with test of gross motor development-2. J. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2011, 32, 1163–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Longmuir, P.E.; Boyer, C.; Lloyd, M.; Borghese, M.M.; Knight, E.; Saunders, T.J.; Boiarskaia, E.; Zhu, W.; Tremblay, M.S. Canadian agility and movement skill assessment (CAM SA): Validity, objectivity, and reliability evidence for children 8–12 years of age. J. Sport Health Sci. 2017, 6, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Rong, Z.; Houcan, Z. Development of the CDCC Chinese child development scale (3–6 years old). Chin. J. Psychol. Sci. 1994, 17, 137–140. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  69. Yongxia, M. Formative evaluation and its application in teaching. J. Shenyang Norm. Univ. Soc. Sci. Ed. 1995, 3, 40–42. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  70. Yanhua, J. On the identity of process evaluation and result evaluation. Chin. J. Contemp. Educ. Forum. 2007, 4, 52–53. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  71. Scriven, M. The Methodology of Evaluation; American Educational Research Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  72. Nianliang, D. The Predicament and Outlet of Formative Evaluation in Chinese Educational Context. Contemp. Educ. Sci. 2016, 22, 28–31. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  73. Zeng, Y.; Jiaojiao, W. Study on the correlation between physical health and gross motor skill level of children. Fujian Sports Sci. Technol. 2022, 41, 11–16. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  74. Robert, F.D. Scale Compilation: Theory and Application, 2nd ed.; Chongqing University Press: Chongqing, China, 2004; pp. 66–148. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  75. Jinha, Z. Research of the Development and Application of Medical Expectancy Evaluation Scale. Ph.D. Thesis, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China, 6 January 2017. [Google Scholar]
  76. Wang, D.; Wu, X.B.; Fan, G. The preliminary screening of item pool on healthy lifestyle questionnaire for college students. Mod. Prev. Med. 2011, 38, 3705–3708. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  77. Minghang, W.; Jiansheng, L.; Suyun, L. Establish a curative effect evaluation index system for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease based on an expert questionnaire survey. Chin. J. Zhonghua Tradit. Chin. Med. 2014, 7, 2120–2124. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  78. Minglong, W. Questionnaire Statistical Analysis Practice—SPSS Operation and Application; Chongqing University Press: Chongqing, China, 2010; pp. 98–183. [Google Scholar]
Ijerph 19 14257 g001 550
Figure 1. Study procedure.
Figure 1. Study procedure.
Ijerph 19 14257 g001
Ijerph 19 14257 g002 550
Figure 2. Catching a bouncing ball test score table.
Figure 2. Catching a bouncing ball test score table.
Ijerph 19 14257 g002
Ijerph 19 14257 g003 550
Figure 3. Factor loading of each item in the final measurement scale.
Figure 3. Factor loading of each item in the final measurement scale.
Ijerph 19 14257 g003
Table
Table 1. Participants in developing the preliminary and final measurement scales.
Table 1. Participants in developing the preliminary and final measurement scales.
ParticipantsGendernAge in MonthsHeight
(m)		Weight
(kg)		BMI
(kg/m2)
(M ± SD)
The preliminary measurement scale36–47 monthsM1044.50 ± 2.921.00 ± 0.0315.90 ± 1.4315.85 ± 0.82
F1042.50 ± 3.240.99 ± 0.3715.37 ± 1.5515.48 ± 1.23
48–59 monthsM1054.30 ± 2.871.07 ± 0.0518.80 ± 2.2016.52 ± 1.31
F1055.30 ± 3.711.07 ± 0.0419.37 ± 2.9716.78 ± 1.60
60–72 monthsM1066.60 ± 2.911.10 ± 0.0522.25 ± 8.6018.18 ± 4.93
F1067.50 ± 3.241.12 ± 0.0722.01 ± 4.3117.55 ± 1.65
The final measurement scale36–47 monthsM4042.95 ± 4.030.99 ± 0.0416.64 ± 1.6317.12 ± 1.20
F4042.20 ± 3.070.97 ± 0.0315.46 ± 1.4015.30 ± 4.64
48–59 monthsM7553.45 ± 2.921.06 ± 0.0519.66 ± 3.0217.52 ± 1.81
F5753.52 ± 4.041.03 ± 0.0517.84 ± 2.8016.63 ± 1.74
60–72 monthsM4363.75 ± 3.861.10 ± 0.0621.05 ± 5.6117.12 ± 3.21
F4364.78 ± 4.181.10 ± 0.0620.63 ± 3.6717.10 ± 1.87
Abbreviations: M: mean; SD: standard deviation; BMI: body mass index; M: boys, F: girls.
Table
Table 2. Commonly used children’s movement skill measurement scales globally.
Table 2. Commonly used children’s movement skill measurement scales globally.
No.CountryYear of PublicationAuthor(s)Name
1Germany1970Kiphard and SchillingKörperkoordinationstest für Kinder (KTK) [60]
2United States1974Folio and
Fewell		Peabody Developmental Motor Scales [61]
3Canada1978R.H. Bruininks and
B.D. Bruininks		Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP) [62]
4United States1985Dale A. UlrichTest of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) [63]
5Germany1987Zimmer and
Volkamer		Motoriktest für vier-bis sechsjährige Kinder [60]
6England1992Henderson and
Sugden		Movement Assessment Battery for Children (M-ABC) [64]
7Netherlands2004Vles,
Kroes, and
Feron		Maastrichtse Motoriek Test (MMT) [65]
8China2010Sun et al.Preschooler Gross Motor Quality Scale [66]
9Canada2015Longmuir et al.Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment [67]
10China1992Rong and HoucanChild Development Scale for 3–6-Year-Olds [68]
11China2000State General Administration of Sport research teamNational Physical Fitness Standards (for Young Children) [56]
Table
Table 3. The results of the expert questionnaire.
Table 3. The results of the expert questionnaire.
Kendall’s Wap
Physical locomotion skills0.3500.000 ***
Object control skills0.2230.000 ***
Physical stability skills0.2760.000 ***
*** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 4. Results of the questionnaire items.
Table 4. Results of the questionnaire items.
ItemAverage Score (M ± SD)CoVCumulative Percentage (%)
Physical locomotion skillsStraight line running4.81 ± 0.510.1190.48%
Shuttle running4.71 ± 0.560.1295.24%
Changeover running4.24 ± 1.090.2680.95%
One-foot jump4.43 ± 1.080.2490.48%
Standing long jump4.48 ± 0.680.1590.48%
Front slide3.57 ± 0.980.2752.38%
Sidestep slide4.05 ± 0.800.2076.19%
Running jump3.43 ± 1.080.3152.38%
Jumping continuously with both feet sideways3.71 ± 1.060.2861.90%
Stride jump4.19 ± 0.930.2276.19%
Jumping jacks3.76 ± 1.180.3161.90%
Synchronized jump on the same side3.10 ± 1.090.3538.10%
Jumping obstacle3.95 ± 0.740.1971.43%
Object control skillsBouncing a ball in place4.57 ± 0.870.1985.71%
Catching a ball with both hands4.67 ± 0.730.1695.24%
Kicking a ball4.57 ± 0.600.1395.24%
Throw a ball up with both hands4.62 ± 0.670.1490.48%
Hitting a ball with one hand over the shoulder4.14 ± 0.910.2285.71%
Bocce ball4.05 ± 1.120.2871.43%
Overhand pitching3.90 ± 0.890.2366.67%
Catching a bouncing ball4.24 ± 0.890.2180.95%
Holding a ball and walking3.71 ± 1.190.3257.14%
Racket horizontal hitting fixed table tennis3.62 ± 1.400.3957.14%
Physical stability skillsStanding on one foot4.76 ± 0.700.1595.24%
Hanging on a horizontal bar3.48 ± 1.500.4347.62%
Walking on a balance beam4.43 ± 0.930.2180.95%
Straight walking3.95 ± 1.020.2666.67%
Standing back and forth on two feet3.95 ± 1.240.3166.67%
Squatting4.05 ± 1.360.3471.43%
Backward straight walking4.00 ± 1.050.2676.19%
Forward rolling3.14 ± 1.010.3233.33%
Tiptoe walking4.29 ± 1.100.2680.95%
Abbreviations: M: mean; SD: standard deviation n = 21
Table
Table 5. Results of testing the preliminary measurement scale.
Table 5. Results of testing the preliminary measurement scale.
ItemAverage Score (M ± SD)CoVrho
Physical locomotion skillsStraight line running9.15 ± 2.980.330.498 **
Shuttle running8.38 ± 1.230.150.465 **
Stride jump6.82 ± 2.090.310.565 **
One-foot jump7.59 ± 1.910.250.645 **
Sidestep slide8.62 ± 2.270.260.618 **
Standing long jump7.00 ± 2.390.340.421 **
Physical locomotion total score46.42 ± 1.270.03
Object control skillsBouncing a ball in place5.02 ± 6.241.240.694 **
Catching a ball with both hands6.54 ± 2.600.400.478 **
Kicking a ball7.75 ± 1.340.170.731 **
Hitting a ball with one hand7.69 ± 2.090.270.750 **
Catching a bouncing ball8.36 ± 2.030.240.637 **
Object control total score35.36 ± 1.960.06
Physical stability skillsStanding on one foot7.29 ± 6.540.900.600 **
Walking on a balance beam5.71 ± 1.130.200.778 **
Balance total score13.00 ± 1.740.13
Total score94.78 ± 2.170.02
rho: Spearman’s rank correlation rho; Abbreviations: M: mean; SD: standard deviation; ** p < 0.01 n = 60
Table
Table 6. Results of testing the final measurement scale.
Table 6. Results of testing the final measurement scale.
ItemInter-Rater Reliability
(n = 298)		Test/Retest Reliability
(n = 36)		Homogeneity
(n = 298)
SpearmanSig.SpearmanSig.Cronbach’s α
Straight line running0.929 **0.0000.913 **0.0000.846
Stride jump0.951 **0.0000.926 **0.0000.841
One-foot jump0.965 **0.0000.909 **0.0000.840
Sidestep slide0.975 **0.0000.914 **0.0000.839
Standing long jump0.914 **0.0000.855 **0.0000.845
Bouncing a ball in place0.959 **0.0000.928 **0.0000.839
Catching a ball with both hands0.937 **0.0000.772 **0.0000.846
Kicking a ball0.966 **0.0000.936 **0.0000.844
Hitting a ball with one hand0.974 **0.0000.956 **0.0000.841
Catching a bouncing ball0.970 **0.0000.914 **0.0000.843
Standing on one foot0.965 **0.0000.835 **0.0000.845
Walking on a balance beam0.844 **0.0000.900 **0.0000.844
** Significance at the 1% level (two-tailed).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, Y.; Gu, Y.; Tian, Y.; Kim, H.; Ma, J.; Jia, X.; Qin, L. Developing a Scale for Measuring the Fundamental Movement Skills of Preschool Children in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14257. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114257

AMA Style

Chen Y, Gu Y, Tian Y, Kim H, Ma J, Jia X, Qin L. Developing a Scale for Measuring the Fundamental Movement Skills of Preschool Children in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(21):14257. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114257

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Yong, Ying Gu, Ying Tian, Hyunshik Kim, Jiameng Ma, Xuefeng Jia, and Lianlian Qin. 2022. "Developing a Scale for Measuring the Fundamental Movement Skills of Preschool Children in China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 21: 14257. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114257

APA Style

Chen, Y., Gu, Y., Tian, Y., Kim, H., Ma, J., Jia, X., & Qin, L. (2022). Developing a Scale for Measuring the Fundamental Movement Skills of Preschool Children in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21), 14257. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114257

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop