Content uploaded by Linda Pagani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Linda Pagani on Dec 11, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
www.ccsenet.org/jedp Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology Vol. 2, No. 1; May 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 95
Links between Motor Skills and Indicators of School Readiness at
Kindergarten Entry in Urban Disadvantaged Children
Linda S. Pagani (Corresponding author)
École de psychoéducation and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Université de Montréal
C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3J7, Canada
Tel: 1-514-343-6111 ext 2524 E-mail: Linda.S.Pagani@umontreal.ca
Sylvie Messier
Centre de Réadaptation Marie Enfant
Université de Montréal
5200, rue Bélanger, Montreal, Quebec, H1T 1C9, Canada
Tel: 1-514-374-1710 E-mail: sylvie.messier@umontreal.ca
Received: November 26, 2011 Accepted: December 22, 2011 Published: May 1, 2012
doi:10.5539/jedp.v2n1p95 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jedp.v2n1p95
This IRB approved research was funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada
(International Opportunities Fund: Grant #861-2007-1005).
Abstract
School readiness represents a kindergarten characteristic which ultimately contributes to academic and personal
success. This literature has traditionally focused on cognitive and behavioral characteristics. However, clinicians
underscore the critical importance of motor skills to kindergarten preparedness. This study, using data from the
Montreal Longitudinal Preschool Study, examines concurrent links between motor skills and other indicators of
school readiness in typically developing children attending regular kindergarten classrooms in disadvantaged
environments. Participants include a sample of 522 children from the Montreal Longitudinal Preschool Study
with individual assessments of receptive vocabulary and number knowledge and teacher ratings of gross, fine,
and perceptual-motor skills and classroom behaviors. The link between motor skills and early math skills
completely explained any influence attributed to verbal skills. Developing a better understanding of how the
distinct key elements of school readiness relate to each other will help teachers devise more comprehensive
strategies in helping children become prepared for the first grade transition, especially in urban, disadvantaged
settings.
Keywords: Motor skills, Cognitive skills, Behavioral skills, Child, School readiness
1. Introduction
School entry characteristics are important for later academic achievement and attainment (Entwisle, Alexander,
& Olson, 2005). To enhance school success with the primary curriculum, children need to begin kindergarten on
solid ground with essential precursors for reading, writing, and arithmetic (High & Committee on Early
Childhood Adoption, and Dependent Care and Council on School Health, 2008). Thus, characteristics conducive
to learning are a functional vocabulary, informal knowledge of the number line and its properties, and adequate
behavioral self-control characteristics (La Paro & Pianta, 2000).
Clinicians and researchers working in the area of cognitive development have long known of a critical shift in
children’s developmental skills between ages five and seven which helps them process information, use logic to
www.ccsenet.org/jedp Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology Vol. 2, No. 1; May 2012
ISSN 1927-0526 E-ISSN 1927-0534
96
understand mathematical and scientific operations, and allows them to pay closer attention and transact with
their environment (Piaget & Inhelder, 1956). These observations are most remarked in Piagetian theory. The
addition of enhancements in cortical regions of the brain which manage executive functions (Kerr & Zelazo,
2004) and emotional regulation (Blair, 2002) produces a child that is “school ready.”
The need for requisite skills at school entry is dramatic for children living in disadvantaged environments
(Pagani et al., 1997; 1999; United Nations Children's Fund, 2005). Young children living in persistent poverty
generally score lower on cognitive tests and general academic performance (NICHD Early Child Care Research
Network, 2005). Such income gradients can be traced to kindergarten (Entwisle et al., 2005; Pagani et al. 1999;
2001). Children from low-income families experience more at-risk parenting and cognitive environments at
home. Parents living in poverty often also report experiencing more stress, family discord and disruption, and
less school success themselves (Pagani et al., 1997). They often rate themselves as having less time to read with
their children and participate in cognitively stimulating activities at home, which results in a less enriching early
childhood environment (Brooks-Gunn, Berlin, & Fuligni, 2000).
School readiness has traditionally defined itself by school entry cognitive and behavioral characteristics which
predict later achievement (La Paro & Pianta, 2000; Vitaro, Brendgen, Larose, & Tremblay, 2005). In the first
comprehensive approach aimed at estimating the impact of school-entry skills on later academic performance in
reading and math, Duncan and colleagues (2007) integrated and analyzed six international longitudinal data sets
while holding constant children’s preschool cognitive ability, behavior, and other important background
characteristics. Their results indicate that early informal math skills, such as knowledge of the number line and
ordinality, were the most powerful predictors of later learning. Early language and reading skills also predicted
later academic performance, although they were relatively less powerful than early math skills. Finally, of all the
behavioral characteristics examined, only attention skills predicted later achievement outcomes.
Much like attention, motor skills have been generally neglected in conceptualizations and investigations of
school readiness, despite the link between motor skills and achievement in the clinical literature (Sandler et al.,
1992; Sortor & Kulp, 2003). During early childhood, cognitive and motor skills recruit common sensory systems
and cortical structures in the brain (Marsh, Gerber, & Peterson, 2008). Brain development occurs through a
sequence of major events, beginning with the formation of the neural tube gestation and intense myelination
during the first two years of life. Anatomical development typically in sensorimotor areas first, subsequently
expanding progressively into dorsal and parietal, superior temporal, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices. This
expansion, driven by a hierarchical principle (in which development proceeds from undifferentiated to
increasingly differentiated skills) brings with it more specific cognitive and behavioral skills. For example, less
specific infant motricity becomes increasingly defined by its fine, gross, and perceptual motor characteristics by
preschool. Cognitive, fine motor, and attention milestones are interdependent, recruiting each other toward
higher-order cognitive functions, and are mostly driven by the frontal cortices (Marsh et al., 2008), especially
during Piaget’s sensorimotor period (Piaget & Inhelder, 1956). In fact, given the well documented overlapping
recruitment, one could argue that motor skills fall within the important constellation of cognitive skills. Although
it figures most prominently in Piagetian theory, it is also noteworthy that movement plays an important role
among the list of preschool key experiences in the Perry Preschool High/Scope Program (Hohmann & Weikart,
2002) and other preschool enrichment programs that favor cognitive control (Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, &
Munro, 2007; Lillard & Else-Quest, 2006). The results of a study conducted by Schweinhart and colleagues
(1993) indicate that the Perry Preschool Program increased children’s later school success and improved the
quality of their contributions to society as a whole.
Interestingly, motor skills are one important aspect of school readiness not examined in the Duncan et al. (2007)
consortium study. In recent replications and extensions, fine motor skills in kindergarten were found to make
their own unique contribution to reading and math skills and productive classroom learning behavior by the end
of second grade (Pagani, Fitzpatrick, Archambault, & Janosz, 2010; Grissmer, Grimm, Aiyer, Murrah, & Steele,
2010). Although these replication studies establish motor skills as an important element of school readiness,
neither describes how motor skills relate to other key components of school readiness during kindergarten. In
other words, are motor skills independently linked with the key kindergarten elements, such as math, verbal, and
attention skills?
A first step in understanding motricity as a school readiness indicator might be to assess its relationship with
cognitive and behavioral characteristics which have been traditionally used to estimate school readiness, prior to
formal school entry (grade 1). There are good reasons to consider motor skills in the conceptualization and
assessment of school readiness. Foremost is the clinically remarked link between learning and motor skill
problems (Geuze, Jongmans, Schoemaker, & Smits-Engelsman, 2001; Missiuna, Moll, King, & Law, 2007).
www.ccsenet.org/jedp Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology Vol. 2, No. 1; May 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 97
There is also evidence of an overlap between behavioral and motor disorders (Kadesjö & Gillberg, 2001; Kaplan,
Wilson, Dewey, & Crawford, 1998; Harvey & Reid, 2003). It is noteworthy than motor deficits are also
associated with specific language impairments in school-aged children (Hill, 2001; Webster, Majnemer, Platt, &
Shevell, 2005; Gaines & Missiuna, 2006). Previous research has estimated that among children attending regular
elementary school classroom, half will exhibit deficits in motor skills (Gubbay, 1975) such as low sporting
ability, clumsiness, and poor handwriting. This study found a higher incidence of reading difficulties in children
rated as clumsy, which is consistent with more recent clinical studies.
In elementary school, children spend 31% to 60% of their academic day in fine motor activities (McHale &
Cermak, 1992) including handwriting tasks and manipulative tasks with school material or tools (e.g., books,
rulers, scissors, glue, etc.). A clinical study conducted by Sandler and colleagues (1992) compared two groups of
children with developmental and learning problems. One group had writing disorders and another one had no
writing problems. Children with writing disorders showed a tendency toward lower mathematics and verbal
competence and more attention problems compared to children with no writing problems.
In a sample selected from three elementary schools, Tseng & Murray (1994) reported that perceptual-motor
measures of visual motor integration and eye-hand coordination are two significant predictors for handwriting
skills. These perceptual-motor skills were measured from standardized tests, including the Developmental Test of
Visual-Motor Integration (VMI, which comprises 24 geometric forms for children to copy, Beery, 1989) and the
Motor Accuracy Test of the Sensory Integration and Praxis Test (which represents a measure of eye-hand
coordination, Ayres, 1989). In addition to gross and fine motor skills (Grissmer et al., 2010; Pagani et al., 2010),
visual perceptual skill should be regarded to be among the most significant factors related to math and reading
achievement. Sortor and Kulp, 2003 (2003) measured visual perception in 155 children in second through fourth
grade classes from primarily white, middle-class, suburban backgrounds. From a subtest of the VMI (Beery &
Buktenica, 1997), they asked to children to identify each matching form. Their results suggest that children with
poor achievement in math and reading should be tested for deficits in visual perceptual skill.
Motor difficulties are associated to speech and language disorders (Iverson & Thelen, 1999; Gaines & Missiuna,
2006). A recent comprehensive review of the literature of well-designed studies investigating children with
specific language impairment found that 40-90% of such children also exhibit motor impairments (Hill, 2001).
Webster and colleagues (2005) conducted a 4-year follow up of children initially diagnosed at pre-school age
(3-4 years) with developmental language impairment and found a relationship between subsequent motor,
language, and cognitive impairments. More specifically, gross and fine motor were highly correlated with
communication scores. However, only fine motor scores showed a significant correlation with cognitive scores.
Using a convenience sample children who had been identified with speech-language delays as toddlers, Gaines
& Missiuna (2006) found that such children may have significant coordination difficulties and are at risk of
experiencing more problems by kindergarten.
Given the above findings, we can derive several conclusions. First, motor skills represent easily assessed
characteristics of kindergarten readiness. Second, studies showing their association with traditionally assessed
indicators of school readiness originate mainly from clinically-based samples of children with motor difficulties.
Third, many clinical studies use individual assessments of motor skills, which are more expensive for larger
scale studies and real world applications associated with public policy. Studies with larger numbers of students
are able to statistically adjust for possible confounds. Finally, very little research has investigated typically
developing children in regular kindergarten classrooms.
It would be helpful to teachers and school professionals to better understand how the different key elements of
school readiness relate to each other prior to formal school entry. This is especially true for teachers working in
urban, disadvantaged settings where children experience cumulative psychosocial risks. Of course, a true
examination such relationships must control for any other competing or confounding factors which, if not
controlled, could inflate or reduce the concurrent links we wish to examine in kindergarten. For example,
cognitive and behavioral characteristics should be controlled when examining the unique association between
motor skills and other school readiness characteristics. Moreover, apart from individual child characteristics,
family background can represent an important predictor of academic achievement. More specifically, family
configuration and income, and parental education and aspirations are all factors that should be considered as
potential confounds in studies of children’s school readiness and achievement (Al-Yagon, 2003; Pagani et al.,
2010; Vitaro et al., 2005). Hence, the objective of this study is to estimate the concurrent links between motor
skills and cognitive and behavioral characteristics at kindergarten entry, above and beyond other competing
explanations. In light of their common brain recruitment features and overlapping roles in Piagetian theory, we
expect significant associations between motor, cognitive, and behavioral skills above and beyond potential
www.ccsenet.org/jedp Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology Vol. 2, No. 1; May 2012
ISSN 1927-0526 E-ISSN 1927-0534
98
confounding child and family characteristics.
2. Method
2.1 Participants
Participating children were from the first cohort of the Montreal Longitudinal Preschool Study (MLEPS, N =
522) who attended kindergarten during the 1998/99 school year (Duncan et al., 2007; Pagani et al., 2010).
Participants were recruited after a multilevel consent process involving school board officials, local school
committees, parents, and teachers. Data were collected from multiple sources, including direct individual
cognitive (verbal and math) assessments of children, and teachers and parents (child academic/social functioning
and family characteristics, respectively).
Seventy-five percent of children in this study lived with both parents. Average total family income was equal or
less than 23,600$ CAN (+16,000$ CAN), which represents the poverty line. Less than half of mothers (46.3%)
had finished high school or high school level trade school. An important proportion of the mothers (66.5%)
hoped that her child would complete university-level studies.
2.2 Measure: Independent Variable
Motor skills. Assessed by teachers at the end of kindergarten, motor skills are divided into three conceptual
scales: (1) Gross Motor (3 items: is well coordinated; moves without running into or tripping over things; ability
to climb stairs, Cronbach alpha = 0.74); (2) Fine Motor (2 items: proficiency at holding a pen, crayons, or a
brush; and ability to manipulate objects, Cronbach alpha = 0.86); (3) Perceptual-motor (8 items: is aware of
writing direction (left to right, top to bottom); is interested in copying teacher’s print; is interested in writing
voluntarily (and not only under the teacher’s direction); is able to write his/her own name; is able to write simple
words; is able to write simple sentences; is able to sort and classify objects by a common characteristics (e.g.,
shape, colour, size); and is able to make 1 to 1 correspondence, Cronbach alpha = 0.71). The items were rated by
teachers on a Likert scale with response options ranging from 1 (never or not true), 2 (sometimes or somewhat
true), to 3 (often or very true). Higher values indicate a higher degree of the factor.
2.3 Measures: Dependent Variables: Cognitive and Behavioral Skills
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT, Forms A and B, French adaptation: Échelle de vocabulaire en
images Peabody) was assessed at the end of kindergarten. Administered by trained examiners, the French-version
of the PPVT has been standardized by Dunn and colleagues (1993) with a sample of 2,038 French-Canadian
children (from ages 2 to 18) using the same images, procedures, and scoring as in the English version. Reliability
was established using the split-half method with Spearman-Brown correction for each age group and for both
Forms A and B (r = 0.66 and 0.85, respectively). Test-retest reliability of the parallel forms was 0.72 at a one
week interval. As with the original version, correlations with other French vocabulary tests and other intelligence
tests are high (Dunn et al., 1993).
The Number Knowledge Test (NKT, abridged version) was administered at the end of kindergarten. From ages 4
through 6, the NKT represents an individually administered assessment of children's informal knowledge of
numbers and conceptual prerequisites of arithmetic operations (Okamoto & Case, 1996). Administered by
trained examiners, the test for the 5-year-old children measures the following conceptual prerequisites: (1)
knowledge of the number sequence from one to ten; (2) knowledge of the one to one correspondence in which a
sequence is mapped onto objects being counted; (3) understanding the cardinal value of each number; (4)
understanding the generative rule which relates adjacent cardinal values; and (5) understanding that each
successive number represents a set which contains more objects. In a recent psychometric study, the test was
shown to have a higher mathematics factor loading than other available preschool tests (Robinson et al., 1996).
The kindergarten version comprises 19 items that assess more advanced informal number knowledge regarding
knowledge of shapes, colors, counting, and basic concept of addition.
The Social Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ, Pagani et al., 1997; 2001) was completed by teachers at the end of
kindergarten. This measure assesses children's behavioral adjustment. The items on the questionnaire can be
divided into the following conceptual scales: Hyperactive-inattentive (7 items: seems agitated and has difficulty
staying in one place; keeps moving; seems impulsive; has difficulty waiting his/her turn; difficulty staying calm;
inattentive; does not listen attentively, Cronbach alpha = 0.91); Physical Aggression (7 items: physical fight at
least once a day; threatens others; bullies or is cruel toward others; bites, kicks, and hits; gets into many fights; if
accidentally hurt, assumes it was intentional; physically attacks people, Cronbach alpha = 0.72); Emotional
distress (5 items: seems unhappy, sad, or depressed; cries a lot; seems worried or fearful; seems anxious; is
nervous or tense, Cronbach alpha = 0.81); Prosocial behavior (9 items: shows sympathy toward others; tries to
www.ccsenet.org/jedp Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology Vol. 2, No. 1; May 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 99
help someone who is hurt; offers to help clean up somebody else’s accidental mess; tries to make peace if there is
a conflict; offers to help someone perceived as weaker or less able; consoles a crying or upset peer; helps
spontaneously to clean or pick things up; invites others to take part in play; comes to the aid of others, Cronbach
alpha = 0.92); and Classroom Engagement (8 items: plays and works cooperatively with other children at the
level appropriate for age; demonstrates self-control; shows self-confidence; follows directions; completes work
on time; works independently; is capable of making decisions; follows rules and instructions, Cronbach alpha =
0.80). Hyperactive-inattentive and physical aggression represent two kinds of externalized behavior, emotional
distress represents an internalized behavior, and prosocial behavior and classroom engagement represent two
positive behaviors. The SBQ is a good predictor of later psycho-social adjustment and academic failure (Dobkin
et al., 1995). National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth norms are available from early childhood
through age 12. All SBQ items were rated on a Likert scale with response options ranging from 1 (never or not
true), 2 (sometimes or somewhat true), to 3 (often or very true). Higher values indicate a higher degree of the
factor.
2.4 Measures: Control Variables
Family Characteristics. (1) Maternal education (mothers not finishing high school versus completion, mother
reports); (2) Family configuration (early childhood single-parent family status versus intact, mother reports); (3)
Total family income (sections of 5000 on 13 levels); and (4) Parents’aspirations regarding the child’s future level
of academic attainment.
Child characteristics. Academic and behavioral difficulties are more often observed in boys. Sex, cognitive
characteristics were controlled when examining behavioral outcomes, and behavioral characteristics were
controlled when examining children’s cognitive outcomes. Additionally, children’s other behavioral
characteristics were controlled when looking at a specific behavioral outcome.
2.5 Procedure: Data Analytic Strategy
A series of multiple regressions were computed to examine the relationship between kindergarten motor skills
and concurrently measured cognitive/behavioral skills and modelled as follows:
COG/BEHiK = a1 + ß1 MOTiK + γ1 FAMi + γ2 CHILDi + eit.
In this estimation equation, COG/BEHiK represents performance on the PPVT and NKT individual assessments
and teacher-rated behavior for the individual child during kindergarten. MOTiK refers to kindergarten
teacher-rated motor indices for each child at kindergarten; FAMi and CHILDi are sets of family background and
child characteristics that, if left uncontrolled, are likely to exert enduring influences on children’s characteristics
up to and beyond the end of the kindergarten school year; a1 and eit represent the constant and stochastic
(patterns resulting from random effects) error term, respectively.
Our objective is to reliably estimate the relationship between kindergarten motor skills and other concurrently
measured school readiness skills. For an unbiased estimation of our predictor (MOTiK), we adopt and estimate an
equation that includes measures of FAM and CHILD for the individuali that could theoretically have a direct or
indirect influence on motor skills. We have chosen maternal education, family configuration, total family income,
and parents’ aspirations of their children’s school success as family level control variables. Child level control
variables include sex and concurrent behavior and cognitive skills that might influence estimates of ß1.
3. Results
Table 1 reports descriptive statistics of children’s characteristics which serve as independent and dependent
variables in this study. A correlation matrix of the relationship of cognitive/behavior characteristics and motor
skills is reported in Table 2. All Pearson correlation coefficients were significant yet below to 0.70, indicating
less concern for multicolinearity between variables. Although the results addressing cognitive skills and
behavioral skills as dependent variables are reported in stepwise detail, Tables 3 and 4 only report the results for
the fully controlled model, respectively.
3.1 Cognitive Variables
Verbal Competence and Motor Skills. In the initial (uncontrolled) model, gross motor (β = .12, p < .05) and
perceptual-motor (β = .16, p < .01) factors were significantly related to verbal competence, as measured by
PPVT. When family controls were added, family configuration and income also were significantly associated
with verbal competence (family configuration: β = -.21, p < .001; family income: β =.31, p < .001). Adding the
family controls did not alter the relationship between verbal and motor skills. However, in the fully controlled
model, reported in Table 3, where child factors are added, the relationship between motor skills and verbal
www.ccsenet.org/jedp Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology Vol. 2, No. 1; May 2012
ISSN 1927-0526 E-ISSN 1927-0534
100
competence becomes mediated by child characteristics, especially by number knowledge, as measured by NKT
[β =.38, t(13,446) = 8.45; p < .001] and to a lesser extent, by prosocial behavior [β =.11, t(13,446) = 2.30; p
< .05]. The fully controlled model explained 26% of the variance in the verbal competence [F(13, 446) = 12.09;
p < .001], compared with 4% and 13% with the uncontrolled and family controlled model, respectively.
Number Knowledge and Motor Skills. The initial model revealed that fine motor (β = 0.17, p < .01) and
perceptual-motor (β = .22, p < .001) factors were significantly associated with number knowledge, as measured
by NKT. When family controls were added, maternal education, family configuration and income also were
significantly related to number knowledge (maternal education: β = .11, p < .01; family configuration: β = -.09, p
< .05; family income: β = .24, p < .001). Adding family characteristics as controls did not alter the relationship
between number knowledge and motor skills. In the fully controlled model, the relationship between motor skills
and number knowledge remained significant once child characteristics were added to the equation (Table 3) [fine
motor: β = .16, t(13,446) = -2.85; p < .01 and perceptual-motor: β = .14, t(13,446) = -3.09; p < .01]. Verbal
competence was significantly related to number knowledge [β = .36, t(13,446) = 8.45; p< .001].
Hyperactive-inattentive behavior [β = -.16, t(13,446) = 2.81; p < .01] also was significantly associated with
number knowledge; however, to a lesser extent. The fully controlled model explained 31% of the variance in the
number knowledge [F(13, 446) = 15.49; p < .001], compared with 12% and 19% for the uncontrolled) and
family controlled models, respectively.
3.2 Behavioral Variables
Hyperactive-Inattentive Behavior and Motor Skills. The uncontrolled model revealed that fine motor (β = -.34, p
< .001) and perceptual-motor skills (β = -.19, p < .001) were each associated with hyperactive-inattentive
behavior, as measured by SBQ. Then, adding family controls did not alter the relationship between motor skills
and hyperactive-inattentive behavior. However, only fine motor remained a significantly associated once child
characteristics were added to the equation [β = -.23, t(13,446) = 4.76; p < .001] in the fully controlled model
which includes child controls, reported in Table 4,. Specifically, physical aggression, as measured by SBQ,
explained the link between perceptual-motor skills and hyperactive-inattentive behavior [physical aggression: β
= -.42; t(13,446) = 11.48; p < .001]. The other child characteristics, with the exception of verbal competence,
also significantly influenced hyperactive-inattentive behavior; however, to a lesser extent [emotional distress: β
=.12, t(13,446) = 3.32; p < .001; number knowledge: β = -.11, t(13,446) = -2.81; p < .01; sex: β = .11, t(13,446)
= -3.00; p < .01; prosocial behavior: β = -.08, t(13,446) = -2.15; p < .05;]. The fully controlled model explained
50% of the variance in the hyperactive-inattentive behavior [F(13, 446) = 34.71; p < .001], compared with 22%
and 23% for the uncontrolled and family controlled models, respectively.
Physical Aggression and Motor Skills. Initial results revealed that perceptual-motor (β = -.12, p < .05) was
significantly associated with physical aggression behavior, as measured by SBQ. Next, adding family
characteristics as controls did not alter the relationship between motor skills and physical aggression, even
though family configuration also was significantly linked with physical aggression (β = -.10, p < .05). However,
in the fully controlled model, three child characteristics mediated the relationship between physical aggression
and perceptual-motor skills. Hyperactive-inattentive made the largest unique contribution in the link between
physical aggression and perceptual-motor skills [β = .54, t(13,446) =11.48; p < .001]. Specifically, prosocial [β =
-.15, t(13,446) =-3.35; p < .001] and emotional distress [β = .08, t(13,446) =1.99; p < .05] were significantly
associated with physical aggression. The fully controlled model explained 37% of the variance in the physical
aggression [F(13, 446) = 19.94; p < .001], compared with 4% and 6% for the uncontrolled and family controlled
models, respectively.
Emotional Distress and Motor Skills. Gross motor skills were significantly associated (β = -.21, p < .001) with
emotional distress in the initial uncontrolled model. Next, parental aspirations also were significantly related to
emotional distress (β = .18, p < .001). Adding family characteristics as controls did not alter the relationship
between gross motor and child emotional distress. The relationship between gross motor skills and emotional
distress remained significant after adding child characteristics in the fully controlled model [β = -.16, t(13,446) =
2.86; p < .01]. Hyperactive-inattentive, prosocial, and physical aggression also were significantly linked with
emotional distress [hyperactive-inattentive: β = .20, t(13,446) = 3.32; p < .001; prosocial: β = -.13, t(13,446) =
-2.71; p < .01; physical aggression: β =.11, t(13,446) = 1.99; p < .05 ]. The fully controlled model explained 22%
of the variance in the emotional distress behavior [F(13, 446) = 9.41; p < .001], compared with 8% and 12% for
the uncontrolled and family controlled models, respectively.
Prosocial Behavior and Motor Skills. Initially, gross motor (β = .18, p < .001) and perceptual-motor (β = .25, p
< .001) were significantly associated with prosocial behavior. Then, adding family characteristics did not alter
www.ccsenet.org/jedp Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology Vol. 2, No. 1; May 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 101
the relationship between motor skills and prosocial behavior. Once child characteristics were added to the
equation in the fully controlled model, the relationship between prosocial behavior and motor skills remained
significant [gross motor: (β = .19, t(13,446) = -3.49; p < .001); perceptual-motor: (β = .16, t(13,446) = -3.36; p
< .001)]. Many child characteristics were significantly related to prosocial behavior, including: verbal
competence (β = .11, t(13,446) = 2.30; p < .05); sex (β = -.18, t(13,446) = 4.00; p < .001); physical aggression (β
= -.17, t(13,446) = -3.35; p < .001); emotional distress (β = -.12, t(13,446) = -2.71; p < .01); and
hyperactive-inattentive behavior (β = -.12, t(13,446) = -2.15; p < .05). The fully controlled model explained 27%
of the variance in the equation addressing the prosocial variable [F(13, 446) = 12.22; p < .001], compared with
12% for uncontrooled and family control models.
Classroom Engagement and Motor Skills. All motor variables (gross motor: β = .15, p < .01; fine motor: β = .29,
p < .001; perceptual-motor: β = .22, p < .001) were initially significantly associated with the SBQ classroom
engagement scale. Next, family characteristics were not significant as controls and thus did not alter the
relationship between motor skills and classroom engagement. In the fully controlled model, many child
characteristics were significantly related to classroom engagement, including hyperactive-inattentive (β = -.49,
t(14,445) = -12.91; p < .001), emotional distress (β = -.20, t(14,445) = -6.65; p < .001), physical aggression (β =
-.15, t(14,445) = -4.57; p < .001), and prosocial behavior (β = .08, t(14,445) = 2.57; p < .01). The relationship
between classroom engagement behavior and motor skills remained significant once child characteristics were
added to the equation [gross motor: (β = .07, t(14,445) = -2.08; p < .05), fine motor: (β = .10, t(14,445) = -2.56; p
< .01), and perceptual-motor: (β = .08, t(14,445) = -2.54; p < .01)]. The fully controlled model explained 68%
of the variance of the classroom engagement [F(14, 445) = 67.92; p < .001], compared with 27% and 28% for
the uncontrolled and family controlled models, respectively.
4. Discussion
Children enter kindergarten with skills and characteristics that either facilitate or hinder learning. The last forty
years have focused on cognitive and behavioral indicators of school readiness. Well controlled, empirical studies
tell us that cognitive characteristics, especially early math, reading, and attention skills, are especially important
(Duncan et al., 2007). Practitioners in the field suggest that being cooperative and able to sit still are also
pertinent (Hohmann & Weikart, 2002; Entwisle et al., 2005). Nevertheless, many requisite skills for first formal
learning of reading, writing, and arithmetic involve specific motor abilities (Henderson & Pehosk, 1995). This
study sought to examine and describe the concurrent relationship between kindergarten motor skills and such
cognitive and behavioral characteristics.
With respect to cognitive school readiness indicators, early math skills were strongly related to both fine motor
and perceptual-motor abilities. The relationship with fine motor ability is likely influenced by the fact that early
informal knowledge of numbers is generated by manipulating objects and exploring their properties. This
overlap is likely attributable to the fact that much of early and informal knowledge of mathematics involves rules
that require perceptual-motor knowledge in terms of spatial relations (Okamoto & Case, 1996; Cirino, 2011)
such as: (1) relative magnitude; (2) incrementing and decrementing tasks, as when addition or subtraction of one
element to a set alters the number of elements in a set by one unit up or down on the number line; (3) knowledge
of relative position on the number line, which is useful for determining the relative quantities in real world
situations; and (4) the features of objects such as shape, color, dimension, and other perceptual features for
selective grouping, matching, and classification tasks. The perceptual-motor skills evaluated in this study include
being able to sort and classify objects by a common characteristics (e g., shape, colour, size) and understanding
one-to-one object correspondence both overlap with early number knowledge. Moreover, other perceptual-motor
skills measured such as being able to write his/her own name and being able to write simple words require
spatial knowledge and directional orientation (Henderson & Pehoski, 1995). These represent mathemathical
reasoning and knowledge (Cirino, 2011; Newcombe & Huttenlocher, 2000).
The relationship between early math skills and motor skills was so strong that it completely explained the
relationship between motor skills and verbal competence. Its power is not surprising, given that there is much
overlap in brain recruitment of areas responsible for motor, math, and attention skills (Grissmer et al. 2011,
Cirino, 2011). On some significant level, even if the effect size is modest, motor skills develop in tandem with
other school readiness skills that are honed between birth and school entry. If a child falls behind on one
essential skill, it is likely to have a negative influence on other related skills, thus calling for comprehensive
intervention strategies.
This study examined relationship between three different categories of behaviors and motor skills. These
correspond to externalizing, internalizing, and positive classroom behaviors. Some clinical studies suggest a
www.ccsenet.org/jedp Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology Vol. 2, No. 1; May 2012
ISSN 1927-0526 E-ISSN 1927-0534
102
relationship (Kaplan et al., 1998; Kadesjö & Gillberg, 2001; Harvey & Reid, 2003). However, these results,
using very controlled models, break new ground by informing us about the relationship between motor and
psychosocial characteristics in typically developing children.
With respect to externalizing behaviors, only hyperactive-inattentive behavior was significantly related to fine
motor skills. Specifically, children showing greater levels of hyperactive-inattentive behavior were more likely to
show deficits with fine motor skills. In fact, this unique association completely accounted for relationship
between fine motor skills and physical aggression. It is noteworthy that previous work suggests that strength and
weakness in attention represent the only behavioral factors that influence later achievement outcomes (Duncan et
al., 2007; Pagani et al., 2011). This link, which reflects the overlap between executive function and motor
circuitry in the brain during early childhood development, suggests the mutual importance of attention to fine
motor skills and assessing both skills when one deficit is noted in a young child. The other deficit may be present
or may become more evident over time. Consequently, focused intervention strategies can be made to
circumvent the co-occurring deficits.
The only result that highlighted gross motor skills is in its association with emotional distress. Children showing
depressed, worried, or anxious classroom behavior showed a greater propensity toward difficulty with gross
motor skills. A study with overweight children reported an inverse association between depressive symptoms and
physical activity in children, reminding us that fatigue and loss of energy represent robust symptoms of
dysphoria across human development (Gray et al., 2008).
All three motor skills were associated with positive classroom behaviors represented by prosocial behavior and
classroom engagement. Helping others and remaining oriented to classroom activities and exhibiting productive
classroom behavior not only involves good cognitive control skills which are governed by executive functions,
they also involve some level of self-regulation in overall motor abilities. Our main conclusion here is that good
motor abilities co-occur with better social skills and task-oriented behaviors in class. It is not unexpected that
both gross motor movement (Hohmann & Weikart, 2002) and fine and perceptual-motor movement (Diamond et
al., 2006; Lillard et al., 2008) figure prominently among the list of key early childhood experiences in
enrichment programs that favour positive development and school readiness.
Surprisingly, our results found more associations between motor skills and positive behaviors, compared to
negative behaviors. Most problem behaviors which involve aggression and oppositional behavior are strongly
associated with inattentive-hyperactive behavior (Dobkin et al., 1995). We controlled for these symptoms when
examining the relationships between behavior and motor skills in this study. The results are quite compelling
because the relationships remained significant despite the adjustments made for family and child factors that
could have confounded this relationship. The most remarkable feature of the results is the robustness of positive
social skills and task oriented behaviors (represented by the prosocial and classroom engagement variables,
respectively). It could also be said that, much like all three specific motor skills examined in this study, positive
behaviors require more effortful control than negative behaviors (Blair & Diamond, 2008) and most learning
tasks and activities involve some degree of effort in motor abilities.
Several observations are worthy of note: Child characteristics such as sex and behavioral skills showed no
influence on the relationship between motor and cognitive skills. However, it seemed important to control for
family characteristics. A possible explanation is that cognitive skills and their correlates, fine motor and
perceptual-motor skills, are often linked with family characteristics. In other words, family characteristics can be
viewed as a support mechanism for learning, especially in low-income settings (Pagani et al., 2001). This is
much in line with findings that parents who provide a stimulating home environment (La Paro & Pianta, 2000)
and participate in children’s learning (Entwisle et al., 2005) tend to promote school success.
Inversely, we noted that, in general, family characteristics do not play a significant role in the relationship
between the motor and behavioral skills, as measured in this study. Yet, child characteristics such as verbal
competence, sex, and behavioral skills must be controlled when examining this relationship. Motor skills might
be inherent to child behavior. This could explain why it is important to control for child characteristics in its
relationship with behavioral more than cognitive characteristics.
We can conclude that, generally, kindergarten entry motor skills are independently related with a number of
important psychosocial characteristics. Both are expected to have an impact on later learning (Entwisle, 2005).
Self-regulation of effortful control (measured by attention in this study), regulated by executive functions,
overlaps with learning fine motor skills, and together provide the prerequisites for later learning. Because
impaired gross motor skills are often accompanied by emotional distress, it likely affects one’s overall physical
disposition toward learning.
www.ccsenet.org/jedp Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology Vol. 2, No. 1; May 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 103
This study is not without limitations. First, we cannot be certain of the true validity of our teacher-rated motor
assessment. For purposes of secondary analysis of already existing longitudinal data, this scale was created by a
clinical content expert from occupational therapy department at the University of Montreal. Its construct and
predictive validity has been established through a principal components analysis which suggests a very good fit
between its items and factors (Pagani et al., 2010). Second, although our work establishes link between motor
skills and cognitive and behavioral characteristics have been traditionally used to estimate school readiness, we
cannot know if motor skills in kindergarten predict later cognitive and behavioral characteristics later. A
longitudinal study would be required to assess the impact of motor development on school readiness. While we
offer a cost-effective alternative for assessing motor skills by using teacher reports, this approach is not as
profound a measure as would be derived using observational data and more rigorous testing of motor skills.
Screening instruments using teacher reports of motor and behavioral skills can flag the need for more in-depth
assessment for children showing atypical development.
These results offer a better understanding of how cognitive and behavioral development co-occur with motor
skills. Preventive intervention treatment of children who show less preparedness in cognitive skills may also
require enrichment of motor skills and vice-versa. Developing a better understanding of how the distinct key
elements of school readiness relate to each other prior to formal school entry will help teachers and school
professionals devise more comprehensive strategies in helping children become prepared for the first grade
transition, especially in urban, disadvantaged settings.
References
Al-Yagon M. (2003). Children at risk for learning disorders: multiple perspectives. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 36, 318-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00222194030360040401
Beery, K. E. (1989). The Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration (3rd ed). Cleveland: Modem
Curriculum Press.
Beery K. E., & Buktenica N. A. (1997). The Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration:
VMI with Supplemental Developmental Tests of Visual Perception and Motor Coordination: Administration,
Scoring and Teaching Manual. Parsippany, NJ: Modern Curriculum Press.
Blair, C. (2002). School Readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of
children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 111-127.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.2.111
Blair, C., & Diamond, A. (2008). Biological processes in prevention and intervention: the promotion of
self-regulation as a means of preventing school failure. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 899-911.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000436
Brooks-Gunn J., Berlin L. J., & Fuligni, A. S. (2000). Early childhood intervention program: What about family?
In J. P. Shonkoff and S. J. Meisels (Eds.) Handbook of early childhood intervention (2nd ed., pp. 549-588).
New-York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529320.026
Cirino, P. T. (2011). The interrelationships of mathematical precursors in kindergarten. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 108, 713–733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.11.004
Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control.
Science, 318, 1387-1388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1151148
Dobkin, P. L., Tremblay, R. E., Mâsse, L. C., & Vitaro, F. (1995). Individual and peer characteristics in
predicting boys early onset of substance abuse: A seven year longitudinal study. Child Development, 66,
1198-1214. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131807
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A., Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School
readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428-1446.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428
Dunn, L. M., Thériault-Whalen, C. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1993). Échelle de vocabulaire en images Peabody.
Adaptation française du Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Manuel pour les formes A et B. (French
adaptation of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Revised. Forms A and B). Toronto: Psycan.
Entwisle, D., Alexander, K., & Olson, L. (2005). First grade and educational attainment by age 22: A new story.
American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1458-1502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/428444
Gaines, R., & Missiuna, C. (2006). Early identification: Are speech/language impaired toddlers at increased risk
www.ccsenet.org/jedp Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology Vol. 2, No. 1; May 2012
ISSN 1927-0526 E-ISSN 1927-0534
104
for coordination difficulties? Child: Care, Health and Development, 33, 325-332.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00677.x
Geuze, R. H., Jongmans, M. J., Schoemaker, M. M., & Smits-Engelsman, B.C.M. (2001). Clinical and research
diagnostic criteria for developmental coordination disorder: A review and discussion. Human Movement Science,
20, 7-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9457(01)00027-6
Gray, W. N., Janicke, D. M., Ingerski, L. M., et al. (2008). The impact of peer victimization, parent distress, and
child depression on barrier formation and physical activity in overweight youth. Journal of Developmental and
Behavioral Pediatrics, 29, 26-33.
Grissmer, D., Grimm, K. J., Aiyer, S. M., Murrah, W. M., & Steele, J. S. (2010). Fine motor skills and early
comprehension of the world: Two new school readiness indicators. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1008-1017.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020104
Gubbay, S. S. (1975). Clumsy children in normal schools. Medical Joural of Australia. 1, 233-236.
Iverson, J. M., & Thelen E. (1999). Hand, mouth and brain: The dynamic emergence of speech and gesture.
Journal of Conciousness Studies, 6, 19-40.
Harvey, W. J., & Reid, G. (2003). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A review of research on movement
skill performance and physical fitness. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20, 1-25.
Henderson, A., & Pehoski, C. (1995). Hand function in the child: Foundations for remediation. St-Louis, MISS:
Mosby-Year Books.
High, P. C., & the Committee on Early Childhood Adoption, and Dependent Care and Council on School Health.
(2008). School readiness. Pediatrics, 121, 1008-1015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-0079
Hill, E. L. (2001). Non-specific nature of specific language impairment: A review of the literature with regard to
concomitant motor impairments. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 46, 149-171.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13682820010019874
Hohmann, M., & Weikart, D. P. (2002). Educating young children: Active learning practices for preschool and
child care programs (2nd ed.). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
Kadesjö, B., & Gillberg, C. (2001). The comorbidity of ADHD in the general population of Swedish school-age
children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 487-492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00742
Kaplan, B. J., Wilson, B. N., Dewey, D., & Crawford, S. G. (1998). DCD may not be a discrete disorder. Human
Movement Science, 17, 471-490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9457(98)00010-4
Kerr, A., & Zelazo, P. D. (2004). Development of ‘‘hot’’ executive function: The children’s gambling task. Brain
and Cognition, 55, 148-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00275-6
La Paro, K. M., Pianta, R. C. (2000). Predicting children’s competence in the early school years: a meta-analytic
review. Review of Educational Research, 70, 443-458. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543070004443
Lillard, A., & Else-Quest, N. (2006). The early years: Evaluating Montessori education. Science, 313, 1893-1894.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1132362
Marsh, R., Gerber, A. J., & Peterson, B. S. (2008). Neuroimaging Studies of Normal Brain Development & Their
Relevance for Understanding Childhood Neuropsychiatric Disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1233-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e318185e703
McHale, K., & Cermak, S. A. (1992). Fine motor activities in elementary school: Preliminary findings and
provisional implications for children with fine motor problems. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46,
898-903.
Missiuna, C., Moll, S., King, S., & Law, M. (2007). A trajectory of troubles: Parents' impressions of the impact
of developmental coordination disorder. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 27, 81 – 101.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/J006v27n01_06
Newcombe, N. S., & Huttenlocher, J. (2000). The development of spatial representation and reasoning.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Child care and child development: results from the NICDH
study of early child care and youth development. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Okamoto, Y., & Case, R. (1996). Exploring the microstructure of children's central conceptual structures in the
www.ccsenet.org/jedp Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology Vol. 2, No. 1; May 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 105
domain of number. In R. Case & Y. Okamoto (Eds.), The role of central conceptual structures in the development
of children's thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60, 27-58.
Pagani L. S., Boulerice B., Tremblay R. E. (In press). The influence of poverty on children’s classroom
placement and behavior problems during elementary school: A change model approach. In G. Duncan and J.
Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor (pp. 311-339). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Pagani, L. S., Boulerice, B., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (1999). Effects of poverty on academic failure and
delinquency in boys: A change and process model approach. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40(8),
1209-1219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00537
Pagani, L. S., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., Boulerice, B., & McDuff, P. (2001). Effects of grade retention on
academic performance and behavioral development. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 297-315.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579401002061
Pagani, L., Fitzpatrick, C., Archambault, I., & Janosz, M. (2010). School Readiness and Later Achievement: A
French Canadian Replication and Extension. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 984-994.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018881
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The Child's Conception of Space. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Robinson, N. M, Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. et al. (1996). The structure of abilities in math-precocious
young children: Gender similarities and differences. Journal of Education Psychology, 88, 341-352.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.341
Sandler, A. D., Watson, T. E., Footo, M., Levine, M. D., Coleman, W. L., & Hooper, S. R. (1992).
Neurodevelopmental study of writing disorders in middle childhood. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral
Pediatrics, 13, 17-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004703-199202000-00005
Sortor J. M., & Kulp M. T. (2003). Are the results of the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor
Integration and its subtests related to achievement test scores? Optometry and Vision Science, 80, 758-763.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200311000-00013
Schweinhart, L. J., Barbes, H., Weikart, D.P. et al. (1994). Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool
Study through age 27. Yipsilanti. MI: High/Scope Press.
Tseng, M.H., & Murray, E. A. (1994). Differences in perceptual-motor measures in children with good and poor
handwriting. Journal of Research in Occupational Therapy, 14, 19-36.
United Nations Children's Fund. (2005). Child poverty in rich countries. NewYork, NY: UNICEF.
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., Larose, S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2005). Kindergarten disruptive behaviors, protective
factors, and educational achievement by early adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 617-629.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.617
Webster, R., Majnemer, A., Platt, R., & Shevell, M. (2005). Motor function at school age in children with a
preschool diagnosis of developmental language impairment. The Journal of Pediatrics, 146, 80-85.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2004.09.005
www.ccsenet.org/jedp Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology Vol. 2, No. 1; May 2012
ISSN 1927-0526 E-ISSN 1927-0534
106
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the child characteristics which represent the independent and dependent
variables in the study
N Minimum Maximum Mean (sd)
Cognitive skills
Verbal competence (PPVT) 471 3 133 63.15 (23.2)
Number Knowledge (NKT) 463 0 19 13.07 (4.0)
Behavioral skills
Hyperactive-inattentive 470 9 27 13.25 (4.7)
Physical aggression 470 7 21 8.24 (2.7)
Emotional Distress 468 5 15 6.44 (1.9)
Prosocial behavior 471 9 27 19.80 (5.1)
Classroom engagement 471 12 23 20.67 (2.7)
Motor skills
Gross motor 471 -0.69 2.35 0.08 (0.88)
Fine motor 471 0.71 2.55 1.15 (0.49)
Perceptual motor 471 0.71 2.92 1.21 (0.50)
Table 2. Correlation matrix depicting the relationship between motor skills and cognitive and behavioural
characteristics in kindergarten
Variables VC NK ME FC FI PA Sex HI PAG ED PRO CE GM FM
Gross
motor
0.12** 0.20*** 0.008 -0.09 0.09 0.11** 0.05 -0.28*** -0.09 -0.26*** 0.25*** 0.38***
Fine
motor
0.08 0.29*** 0.04 -0.05 0.04 0.06 -0.28*** -0.44*** -0.16*** -0.22*** 0.22*** 0.47*** 0.60***
Perceptual
motor
0.16*** 0.31*** 0.05 -0.07 0.11* 0.006 -0.29*** -0.35*** -0.16*** -0.16*** 0.30*** 0.38*** 0.27*** 0.45***
www.ccsenet.org/jedp Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology Vol. 2, No. 1; May 2012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 107
Table 3. Relationship between motor skills and cognitive skills
Fully controlled model
Verbal
competence
Number
knowledge
Independent variable: Motor skills
Gross motor 0.09 0.002
Fine motor 0.10 0.16**
Perceptual motor 0.05 0.14**
Control variables: family characteristics
Maternal education 0.02 0.10**
Family configuration (single-parent)
-0.16***
-0.03
Family income
0.22***
0.12**
Parents’ aspirations 0.02 -0.003
Control variables: child characteristics
Number knowledge
0.38***
Verbal competence 0.36***
Sex (boys) 0.03 0.03
Hyperactive-inattentive -0.08 -0.16**
Physical aggression -0.02 -0.05
Prosocial behavior 0.11* 0.06
Emotional distress -0.04 -0.04
Note. *p < 0.05; **p < 0. 01; ***p < 0.001
Table 4. Relationship between motor skills and behavioral skills
Fully controlled model
Hyperactive
inattentive
Physical
aggression
Emotiona
l distress
Prosocial
behaviour
Classroom
engagement
Independent variable: Motor skills
Gross motor 0.01 -0.07 -0.16** 0.19*** 0.07*
Fine motor -0.23*** -0.07 0.002 0.10 0.10**
Perceptual motor 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.16*** 0.08**
Control variables: family characteristics
Maternal education -0.001 -0.05 -0.03 0.02 0.004
Family configuration (single-parent) -0.03 -0.05 -0.03 -0.04 -0.01
Family income -0.02 -0.05 -0.03 -0.04 0.004
Parents’ aspirations 0.01 -0.02 0.18*** 0.04 -0.01
Control variables: child characteristics
Verbal competence 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.11* -0.01
Number knowledge -0.11** 0.05 0.05 -0.06 -0.01
Sex (boys) 0.11** 0.005 0.01 -0.18*** -0.04
Hyperactive-inattentive 0.54*** 0.20*** -0.12* -0.49***
Physical aggression 0.42*** 0.11* -0.17*** -0.15***
Prosocial behavior -0.08* -0.15*** -0.13** 0.08**
Emotional distress 0.12*** 0.08* -0.12** -0.20***
Note. *p < 0.05; **p < 0. 01; ***p < 0.001
