Psychomotor Intervention to stimulate Motor Development in 8-10-year-old schoolchildren

Abstract

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1980-0037.2017v19n2p150

The human being does not have static development throughout life. From conception to death, there are physical, psychological, social transformations and modifications, being vulnerable to restrictions. Interventions seek to reduce the effects of these restrictions, as children and adolescents are influenced by impoverished motor experiences in the family and school environment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of an intervention program on 8-10-year-old schoolchildren in the public school system of Matinhos/PR, Brazil. Ninety-one 8-10-year-old schoolchildren from the 3rd, 4th and 5th grades were evaluated by the Motor Development Scale (MDS). Fifty-four of them presented risk of delay. Of these, 27 who performed weekly physical education classes were randomized into Control Group (CG), and 27 (Experimental Group - EG) to a psychomotor intervention program twice a week for four weeks. After interventions, EG and CG were reassessed. In the analysis of the General Motor Quotient (GMQ), it was verified that in all grades, EG presented a significant increase compared to the moment of evaluation, which was not observed among children in the CG. There was a significant increase in the averages in the reevaluation of CG and GE, however, EG presented significant differences in the Fine Motor and Balance dimensions. Intervention improved GMQ, Fine Motor and Balance compared to traditional Physical Education class.

Full text

BY
Licença
Creative Commom
Rev Bras Cineantropom Hum
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1980-0037.2017v19n2p150
original article
Psychomotor Intervention to stimulate Motor
Development in 8-10-year-old schoolchildren
Intervenção Psicomotora para estímulo do
Desenvolvimento Motor de escolares de 8 a 10 anos
Adriano Zanardi da Silva1
Fernando Lucas Hara Pereira2
Guilherme Mincewicz2
Luize Bueno de Araujo1
Ana Tereza Bittencourt Guimarães3
Vera Lúcia Israel1
Abstract – e human being does not have static development throughout life. From
conception to death, there are physical, psychological, social transformations and modi-
cations, being vulnerable to restrictions. Interventions seek to reduce the eects of these
restrictions, as children and adolescents are inuenced by impoverished motor experiences
in the family and school environment. e aim of this study was to evaluate the eects
of an intervention program on 8-10-year-old schoolchildren in the public school system
of Matinhos/PR, Brazil. Ninety-one 8-10-year-old schoolchildren from the 3rd, 4th and
5th grades were evaluated by the Motor Development Scale (MDS). Fifty-four of them
presented risk of delay. Of these, 27 who performed weekly physical education classes
were randomized into Control Group (CG), and 27 (Experimental Group - EG) to a
psychomotor intervention program twice a week for four weeks. After interventions, EG
and CG were reassessed. In the analysis of the General Motor Quotient (GMQ), it was
veried that in all grades, EG presented a signicant increase compared to the moment
of evaluation, which was not observed among children in the CG. ere was a signicant
increase in the averages in the reevaluation of CG and GE, however, EG presented sig-
nicant dierences in the Fine Motor and Balance dimensions. Intervention improved
GMQ, Fine Motor and Balance compared to traditional Physical Education class.
Key words: Child; Child development; Motor skills; Physical education and training.
Resumo – O ser humano não tem um desenvolvimento estático ao longo da vida. Desde a con-
cepção à morte, são conhecidas transformações e modicações físicas, psicológicas e sociais, estando
vulneráveis a restrições. As intervenções buscam reduzir efeitos destas restrições, pois crianças e
adolescentes sofrem inuência de vivências motoras empobrecidas no meio familiar e ambiente
escolar. Objetivou-se avaliar efeitos de um programa de intervenção em escolares de oito a dez
anos da rede pública de ensino do município de Matinhos/PR, Brasil. Foram avaliados 91 es-
colares, de oito a dez anos, do 3º, 4º e 5º ano, foram avaliadas pela Escala de Desenvolvimento
Motor (EDM). Destas, 54 apresentaram risco de atraso no desenvolvimento. Das 54 crianças,
27 que realizaram semanalmente aulas de Educação Física curriculares foram randomizadas no
Grupo Controle (GC), e 27 (Grupo Experimental – GE) foram submetidas a uma intervenção
psicomotora, duas vezes na semana, durante quatro semanas. Após as intervenções, o GE e GC
foram reavaliadas. Na análise do Quociente Motor Geral (QMG), vericou-se que em todos
os anos, o GE apresentou aumento signicativo comparado ao momento de avaliação, fato não
observado entre crianças do GC. Houve elevação signicativa das médias na reavaliação no GC
e no GE, contudo, o GE apresentou diferenças signicativas em relação ao GC, nas dimensões
Motricidade Fina e Equilíbrio. A intervenção melhorou o QMG, a Motricidade na e Equilíbrio
em comparação com a aula de Educação Física tradicional.
Palavras-chave: Criança; Desenvolvimento infantil; Destreza motora; Educação física e
treinamento
1 Feder al University of Paraná. Gra-
duate Program in Physical Education.
Curitiba, PR. Brazil.
2 Feder al University of Paraná.
Physiotherapy Course. Curitiba, PR.
Brazil.
3 State Universit y of Western Par aná.
Biost atistics Course. Casc avel, PR.
Brazil.
Received: 24 February 2017
Accepted: 02 April 2017

Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2017, 19(2):150-163 151
INTRODUCTION
Childhood and adolescence are essential periods for learning, mainly
due to the rapid neurodevelopment and greater neural plasticity, that is,
experience in this period alters the architecture of neural circuits due to
greater plasticity, strengthening synapses1. In these phases of human de-
velopment, in addition to the physiological implications related to aspects
of neurological maturation, the young organism is especially sensitive to
the inuence of environmental and behavioral factors of both positive and
negative nature2. It is believed that motor coordination in childhood will
exert inuence in the later years of life, which results in greater abilities in
sports practice in individuals physically active from childhood3.
Some authors4-5 state that the biological characteristics and social and
cultural factors result in the child’s development. us, it is important that
interventions involve several factors and tasks so that skills are properly
acquired. It is in this way that these characteristics and factors are inte-
grated, forming the motor development of the human being6.
ere is no question of the inuence of the environment on develop-
ment and how it occurs; however, the number of schools with adequate
spaces for physical activity practices is currently scarce, which may com-
promise the development of the motor skills of students due to precarious
infrastructure7.
A study8 has shown that motor performance is correlated to school
performance, and that the use of the MDS evaluation tool enables the
teacher to identify the specic needs of students, as well as the elaboration
of educational goals and psychomotor interventions.
A research9 has compared the motor performance of children in sports
schools with children who only performed Physical Education classes and
veried that children who participated only in Physical Education classes
had lower levels of motor performance. ese ndings conrm the need
for the diversity of interventions and activities complementary to Physical
Education classes with children in the study age group.
Since the reality of the research site is restricted to a public school with
low-income population and without conditions of activities outside the
school environment, it is necessary to analyze the eects of interventions
applied in the school context and of easy reproducibility.
e great majority of studies that perform psychomotor interventions
are aimed at students with special needs or with some specic pathol-
ogy10. ere is, therefore, a shortage of studies that propose psychomotor
intervention for students with typical development. e acquisition of
motor skills is related to school performance and learning process, as well
as to prevention for future life11, which justies the need to implement
psychomotor activities for this population.
Considering these perspectives, the aim of this study was to evaluate
the eects of a psychomotor intervention on the Motor Development of
schoolchildren from 3rd to 5th grades of a city in southern Brazil.

Effects of psychomotor intervention on schoolchildren Silva et al.
152
METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES
is experimental research was approved by the Ethics Research Commit-
tee of the Health Sciences sector, Federal University of Paraná (UFPR),
CAAE No. 16964513.9.0000.0102, respecting the specic resolution of
the National Health Council (No. 466/12) that involves research with
beings humans.
e sample consisted of 91 children enrolled in a public school in Mat-
inhos / PR, Brazil, who had no physical disabilities or neurological diseases
diagnosed and authorized by their parents and / or guardians by signing the
Informed Consent Form (TCLE), according to the Helsinki Declaration.
Children of the 3rd (n = 25), 4th (n = 34) and 5th (n = 32) grades were evalu-
ated for the convenience of researchers and availability of class schedules.
e Motor Development Scale (MDS)13 was used for data collection
in the pre- and post-intervention moments. is instrument determines,
among other items, the General Motor Quotient (GMQ) and the motor
development dimensions: Fine Motor (Motor Age 1 - IM1), Global Mo-
tor (Motor Age 2 - IM2), Balance, Body Scheme (Motor Age 4 - IM4),
Spatial Organization (Motor Age 5 - IM5) and Temporal Organization
(Motor Age 6 - IM6)11.
ese values are quantied (in points) and categorized, allowing clas-
sifying the skills analyzed into standards: Very High (130 or more), High
(120-129), High Normal (110-119), Average Normal (90-109), Low Normal
(80-89), Low (70-79), Very Low (69 or less)11.
After evaluation, children with performance above “Low Normal” did
not fall into any group. Individuals with performance equal to or below
“Low Normal” were randomized into Experimental Group (EG) and
Control Group (CG):
• CG: Children with low normal, low, very low result, who did not
receive intervention and performed traditional physical education
class in school;
• GE: Children with low normal, low, very low result, who received the
intervention program. For the intervention, three dierent intervention
strategies were created (one for 8-year-olds, one for 9-year-olds and
one for 10-year-olds), with the same psychomotor goal for all. If some
was late or advanced in relation to the school grade, it would enter into
the age-appropriate group.
e intervention had average duration of 40 minutes, twice a week,
totaling 8 interventions, with total duration of 4 weeks.
All activities were carried out within the school premises, during the
period when the children attended school, and aimed at stimulating the
participants’ motor skills. e intervention was developed and applied by
three academic Physiotherapy researchers with teacher supervision and
follow-up of teacher of each classroom. e materials used for the pro-

Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2017, 19(2):150-163 153
gram were simple materials available at the school itself, so the program is
easy to apply and reproducible. All activities were based on the proposed
objectives that covered the pillars of psychomotricity: Balance, Spatial /
temporal organization, Body scheme, Fine Mobility, Global Mobility and
Laterality. e proposed activities are described below:
Intervention 1
• Activity: Balance the little ball (Balance, ne and global mobility,
Spatial and temporal organization).
Materials: 2 rubber balls and 2 spoons.
Description: e child should hold the spoon performing tweezers
and balancing the ball that will be on the tip of the spoon, traveling
determined distance.
• Activity: Gather the grains (ne and global mobility).
Materials: Table and bean grains.
Description: Several bean grains will be spread on a table, each team
will aim to obtain these grains, and the team with the largest number
of beans will win.
• Activity: Goal to goal (Balance, global mobility, spatial organization,
laterality).
Materials: Chairs and ball.
Description: Students divided into two teams, on the side of each team
there will be a chair, which will be used as a goal.
• Activity: Basketball in the chair (Balance, global mobility, spatial /
temporal organization).
Materials: Chair and ball.
Description: Divide participants into two teams. Each team must
choose a person to stay on top of a chair, which will stay in the op-
ponent’s defense eld. e goal is to get the ball to the teammate on
the chair.
Intervention 2
• Activity: Chain catch (Spatial organization, balance, global mobility,
body scheme).
Materials: None.
Description: Participant spread throughout space and one will be
named the catcher. At the signal, he will go after other participants.
When he picks up someone, this person happens to be helping the
catcher, holding hands, forming a chain. When everyone is caught,
another participant will start picking up.
• Activity: Crazy Race (Spatial / temporal organization, balance, body
scheme, global mobility).
Materials: 02 sock-lled balls, 02 cones.
Description: Students divided into two groups. e 1st of each group
must have a sock-lled ball balanced on the head and will have to
make a course to a cone, betting the race without letting the ball fall.

Effects of psychomotor intervention on schoolchildren Silva et al.
154
If dropped, the student must stop and replace it, returning to the end
of the row, the last that completes the course wins.
• Activity: Ball in the hula hoop (Global mobility, body scheme, lat-
erality).
Materials: Ball and hula hoop.
Description: Distribute hula hoops in a vertical line, form two rows
of students, who must bounce the ball inside the hula hoop, the team
that nishes rst wins.
• Activity: Which side do I go to? (Laterality, Spatial / temporal or-
ganization).
Materials: None.
Description: Form two teams in a vertical row, the rst one in the
row will receive the command to go left or right, after the command,
he must go to the requested side, returning to the end of the row, the
team that completes rst wins.
Intervention 3
• Activity: Zigzag (global mobility, balance, spatial / temporal organi-
zation).
Materials: Hula hoops.
Description: Spread the hula hoops on the ground and form two teams
in a row, the students must perform zigzag between hula hoops, the
team that nish rst wins.
• - Activity: Spread the hula hoops on the ground and form two teams
in a row, the students must perform zigzag between hula hoops, the
team that nish rst wins.
Materials: Hula hoops.
Description: Spread the hula hoops on the ground and form a row
of students, one by one they should jump feet together from one hula
hoop to the other.
• Activity: Ball pass (global mobility, balance, spatial / temporal or-
ganization, laterality, body scheme).
Materials: Ball.
Description: Participants form a wheel, whoever is with the ball
should say the name of a participant and throw the ball at him. If he
cannot catch the ball, he is eliminated. If he can get the ball, he will
say the name of another person who will follow the game, from where
a winner will emerge.
• Activity: Change of place (global mobility, balance, spatial / temporal
organization, laterality, body scheme).
Materials: None.
Description: Participants form a gigantic wheel and choose a fool,
who will be in the center of it. With each round, the fool will order
two people to change places. Example: FOOL: - Maria and Beto.
Immediately, Maria should go to Beto’s place and Beto should go to
Maria’s place. Meanwhile, the fool tries to get into one of the empty

Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2017, 19(2):150-163 155
places. If you cannot do it, do another round. If you can, whoever lost
the place is the new fool.
Intervention 4
• Activity: Who remembers more Organization (spatial / temporal).
Materials: Sheets of paper, pencil.
Description: Two teams are composed and one student writes down
for each team. e master will show the same drawn paper (various
gures, animals, objects ...) for each team for 30 seconds. After 30
seconds another countdown is started, now 2 minutes, which is the
time it takes for each team member to write down on paper the highest
number of things he can remember in the landscape. ere are several
rounds (several drawings). e team that hits more things wins the
round and the team that wins more rounds wins the game.
• Activity: Jump rope (global mobility, balance, spatial / temporal or-
ganization, laterality, body scheme).
Materials: 3m rope.
Description: Children should jump rope with one foot, when they are
asked, they should change foot.
• Activity: Follow the master (Global mobility, balance, spatial / tem-
poral organization, laterality, body scheme).
Materials: None.
Description: e children will form a row, the rst directs the queue
for a walk; however, they will walk counting steps, heel on the tip of
the foot and vice versa.
• Activity: Mirror (global mobility, balance, spatial / temporal organiza-
tion, laterality, body scheme).
Materials: None.
Description: One student facing the other, one student should make
some movement and another should repeat, be aware that if the student
moves the right arm the other should also move the right arm.
Intervention 5
• Activity: Bounce the ball (global mobility, balance, spatial / temporal
organization, laterality, body scheme).
Materials: Ball.
Description: e student should bounce the ball on the oor with his
right hand and then left, while walking, on the return delivery it to
the friend who should do the same.
• Activity: Balance in the bench: (Global mobility, balance, spatial /
temporal organization, laterality, body scheme).
Materials: Two benches and one ball.
Description: Place two benches in front of each other, the children
should stand on top of the benches playing ball to each other; who
loses balance returns to the game.
• Activity: Do what I do: (Global mobility, balance, spatial / temporal
organization, laterality, body scheme).

Effects of psychomotor intervention on schoolchildren Silva et al.
156
Materials: None
Description: Form a row and choose a leader who should be the rst
in line, the same should move to any side, and whoever is behind has
to follow him.
• Activity: Fut zigzag: (Global mobility, balance, spatial / temporal
organization, laterality).
Materials: Ball and hula hoop.
Description: Place the hula hoops in a vertical line apart, the student
should lead the ball with his feet between the hula hoops and in return
deliver the ball to the next.
Intervention 6
• Activity: Take the ball (global mobility, balance, spatial / temporal
organization, laterality, body scheme).
Materials: Ball.
Description: Form a vertical row, the rst child must throw the ball
up and run to the end of the queue while the next in the row takes the
ball before it falls on the ground.
Activity: Handclap (Global mobility, spatial / temporal organization).
Materials: None.
Description: Gather the students, they must clap their hands together
and ask them to repeat the sequence of clapping. Ask some of them to
“command” the activity.
• Activity: Jumping with rope (Global mobility, balance, spatial / tem-
poral organization, laterality, corporal scheme).
Materials: Ball and hula hoops.
Description: Distribute hula hoops on the ground and at the end put
a 45cm rope, the students will have to go through the hula hoops and
then jump the rope.
• Activity: Bouncing ball (global mobility, balance, spatial / temporal
organization, laterality, body scheme).
Materials: Ball.
Description: Students must bounce the ball for 5 meters with both
hands, and on the back return to the next on the line.
Intervention 7
• Activity: Pet bottle bowling (Global mobility, balance, spatial / tem-
poral organization, laterality, body scheme).
Materials: Ball and pet bottles.
Description: Place the pet bottles 10m apart, the students one by one,
will throw the ball in order to knock down the largest number of bottles.
• Activity: Paper war (global mobility, balance, spatial / temporal or-
ganization, laterality, body scheme).
Materials: Paper balls.
Description: Divide two teams into one eld or adequate space, two
teams play in two distinct elds, separated by a space. Each team will

Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2017, 19(2):150-163 157
have dozens of paper balls. ey will start throwing these paper balls
into the opponent’s eld, which should do the same. e goal is to get
the balls out of your eld and play on the opponent. e team that has
less paper in their eld is the winner.
• Activity: Tunnel ball (Global mobility, balance, spatial / temporal
organization, laterality, body scheme).
Materials: Hula hoops.
Description: Two teams play. Participants stand one behind the other
with their legs spread apart, forming two tunnels (one for each team).
e rst one in the queue passes the ball under the tunnel (through
everyone’s hand) and the one at the end of the tunnel must pick it up,
run and take it to the front of the tunnel, where he will do the same.
Everyone will have their turn. e team whose rst player returns to
the starting position wins.
• Activity: Relay in reverse (global mobility, balance, spatial / temporal
organization, laterality, body scheme).
Materials: 30 cm stick.
Description: Identical to the athletics mode. ere are two teams,
each with 4 runners, who are expected to run and deliver a stick to
the back mate. But this race will be done on the back. e team that
completes the relay rst wins.
Intervention 8
• Activity: Grab and throw the ball (global mobility, balance, spatial /
temporal organization, laterality, body scheme).
Materials: Ball.
Description: Form two vertical rows, the rst of the row must throw
the ball to the rst of the other row and return to the end of it, the
game ends when the ball reaches the rst player who threw it.
• Activity: One foot only: (Global mobility, balance, spatial / temporal
organization, body scheme).
Materials: None.
Description: At the signal, students should jump on one foot only, al-
ternating of feet when requested, or to make dicult, ask them to close
their eyes.
• Activity: Jump the bench (Global mobility, balance, spatial / temporal
organization, laterality, body scheme)
Materials: 45 cm bench.
Description: After forming a row, place the bench at a certain distance
from students, who should jump over it until it reaches the last student.
• Activity: Race to the mirror: (Global mobility, balance, spatial / tem-
poral organization, laterality, body scheme).
Materials: None.
Description: Divide two teams into a eld or appropriate space, one
by one the students must run against, at a certain time, there will be
command of which side they should go (right or left).

Effects of psychomotor intervention on schoolchildren Silva et al.
158
After intervention, both groups were reassessed by MDS to analyze
the program eectiveness. After reevaluation, after the end of the work,
children from CG and those who presented an initial performance above
“low normal”, participation in the intervention was oered.
e dierence between MDS (GMQ ) variables and Motor Age (IM1
to IM6) was evaluated for data distribution pattern using the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov & Lilliefors test. e homogeneity of variances was evaluated by
the Levene test. Once the assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity
were checked, variables were compared using the ANOVA test for Repeated
Measures to compare CG and EG in the pre- and post-test moments,
considering groups and school grades (3rd, 4th and 5th grades). Means were
evaluated between pairs by Tukey’s test for unequal n’s. All analyses were
performed in the Statistica 7.0 software, assuming signicance level of 0.05.
RESULTS
A total of 91 students participated in the study, of which 25 were students of
the 3rd grade, 34 of the 4th grade and 32 students of the 5th grade, with mean
age of 105.96 ± 6.73, 113.23 ± 7.94 and 124.06 ± 4.64 months, respectively.
Forty-three (47.25%) were female and 48 (52.74%) were male. Of these, 54 pre-
sented risk of developmental delay, which were randomized into CG and EG.
Of the 25 3rd grade students, 84% (n = 21) presented “low normal”
performance, while only 16% (n = 4) presented “Average Normal” per-
formance. Of the 34 4th grade students, 55.88% (n = 19) presented “Low
Normal” performance, and 44.11% (n = 15) presented “Average Normal”
performance. In the 5th grade, 46.87% (n = 15) presented “Average Normal”
performance, 40.62% (n = 13) presented “Low Normal” performance and
12.5% (n = 4) “Low” performance (Table 1).
Table 1. Quantity (n) and percentage (%) of individuals by gender, mean age and result of the
evaluation
3rd grade 4th grade 5th grade
n % n % n %
Male 15 60.0 19 55.9 14 43.8
Female 10 40.0 15 4 4.1 18 56.2
Tot al 25 100.0 34 100.00 32 100.00
Age (months) ±
Standard Deviation
105.96±6.73 -113.23±7.94 -124.06±4.24 -
Average Normal 04 16.0 15 4 4.1 16 48.3
Low Normal 21 84.0 19 55.9 12 38.7
Low 00 0.0 00 0.0 04 12.9
Table 2 describes the mean values of EG and CG for GMQ , IM1
(Fine Mobility) and IM3 (Balance), at baseline (Evaluation) and post
intervention (Reevaluation).

Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2017, 19(2):150-163 159
Tabl e 2. GMQ, IM1 and IM3 values pre- and post-intervention
Grade Group nEvaluation Re-evaluation
Mean ± SD Mean ± SD
GMQ
3rd Control 10 84.60±3.77 93.2±9.47
3rd Experimental 11 85.30±4.27 106.9±9.48
4th Control 10 85.60±4.19 87.8±9.16
4th Experimental 09 86.44±4.53 103.0±6.98
5th Control 08 86.00±2.94 95.3±5.85
5th Experimental 08 85.43±2.29 97.1±5.93
IM1
3rd Control 10 85.20±4.73 101.4 0 ±15 .34
3rd Experimental 11 88.20±8.02 124. 20 ±8.50
4th Control 10 106.80±15.44 113.40±10. 75
4th Experimental 09 101.33±10.58 128.00±6.70
5th Control 08 116.50±3.00 124.50±9.00
5th Experimental 08 10 9.8 6 ±11. 71 130.29±2.92
IM3
3rd Control 10 94. 80±13.2 0 10 2 .60 ±18. 42
3rd Experimental 11 96.60±9.98 124.2 0±8.02
4th Control 10 112. 20±8 .02 114 .0 0 ±11.66
4th Experimental 09 10 8.0 0 ±14 .69 122.00±15.87
5th Control 08 111.00±6.00 126.00±6.92
5
th
Experimental
08
108.86±8.78
126.86±6.41
GMQ = General Motor Quotient; IM1 = Motor Age 1 (Fine Mobility); IM3 = Motor Age 3 (Balance);
N = Number of students per group; SD = Standard Deviation
In the analysis of variable GMQ , it was possible to verify that in all
school grades, EG presented increase of averages at the moment of revalu-
ation when compared to the moment of evaluation, a fact not observed
among children from the CG, a result that indicates an improvement in
performance of the children participating in the intervention. However,
the signicant dierence between groups was observed at the moment of
reevaluation only in the 3rd and 4th grades (Figure 1).
Figure 1. General motor quotient analysis in the pre- and post-inter vention moments.

Effects of psychomotor intervention on schoolchildren Silva et al.
160
When evaluating the Fine Motor Age (IM1), it was possible to verify
that in the 3rd grade, there was an increase in the averages at the time of
re-evaluation in both CG and EG, but EG presented signicant dier-
ences in relation to CG, which evidences an improvement in the motor
performance in the ne motor item for children participating in the in-
tervention program (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Fine Motor Analysis in pre- and post-intervention moments.
In relation to the Motor Age of Balance (IM3), it was possible to
verify that the EG in the 3rd grade presented a high mean at the time of
reevaluation, presenting signicant dierences in relation to CG, which
shows an improvement in the balance for these participants (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Equilibrium analysis in pre- and post-intervention moments.

Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2017, 19(2):150-163 161
DISCUSSION
Motor development in schoolchildren has been a frequent target of research,
considering the repercussions in the lives of these children and adolescents.
Studies have found that most participants had motor development below
normal levels, a result similar to that of this study12. Another study13,
which used the same instrument, evaluated the motor skills of school-
children participating in social educational projects, sports projects and
non-participants in extra-class structured activities, and its result evidenced
the vast dierence in motor skills that children participating in activities
have compared to those who did not participate, especially those that
are focused on specic sports. Other studies have used MDS to evaluate
the development of schoolchildren, most of them indicating low motor
performance scores of participants14,15,16,17,18. It is clear that the practice of
physical activities in childhood and adolescence promotes the improvement
in motor skills and the acquisition of new skills and experiences.
When analyzing the total number of participants (91 children) of the
present study, it was observed that this is a larger sample when compared
with other studies on the same subject19,20. Only one study with a related
theme was found with a larger number of participants; however, it involved
40 public schools (1 federal, 25 state, 14 municipal schools) from 24 neigh-
borhoods of the city of Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil13.
In our sample, 59.34% (n = 54) of children presented risk of devel-
opmental delay. A study8 using the same instrument showing dierent
results was developed with 6-10-year-old students from two public schools
and veried that the majority of schoolchildren (96%) presented motor
development within normal parameters, which justies the creation of an
intervention program for the sample with developmental risks.
In spite of the high risk in all sampled school grades, the fth grade is
notable because it presents a high rate of students with low motor perfor-
mance, mainly due to the number of children classied as “Low”. Another
study, which also used MDS, also found similar results, in which older
schoolchildren (approximately 10 years of age) presented lower performance
compared to younger ones13. Other studies with dierent methods also
showed a decrease in motor performance and physical activity index as
the age increased21,22,23.
ese ndings can be explained by the fact that with school progress,
children are increasingly involved in curricular activities, which restricts
activities (plays and games), which stimulate the exploration of one’s own
body and the environment, consequently leading to motor diculties19.
Based on this principle, it is important to emphasize that the earlier the
evaluations and intervention proposals, the better the chances of preventing
neuropsychomotor disturbances and decits aecting children’s develop-
ment (personal, professional and academic)22.
One of the main positive results of the intervention in the present study
was the improvement in ne motor skills in EG that, despite being directly

Effects of psychomotor intervention on schoolchildren Silva et al.
162
associated with academic performance, is little mentioned in literature when
it comes to sports performance, but several sports require such skills21-23 .
A research carried out9 with children aged 8-10 years veried that
children who were inserted in the sporting context presented better per-
formance in motor skills than children that only performed physical educa-
tion classes, which also occurred in the present study, since children who
performed the intervention program presented better motor performance.
ese ndings can be justied by the inuence of the environment and
context on children’s motor acquisition, which can also be justied by the
results of another study19.
A study24 compared the motor performance of practitioners and non-
practitioners of systematic physical activity, and although both groups
presented motor performance lower than expected, the group that practiced
systematic physical activity presented better performance in motor skills
and control of objects than the group of non-practitioners. ese results
are in agreement with the ndings of the present study, which justies
the implementation of a specic and structured intervention program in
the school environment.
e limitations of the study include the fact that activities were carried
out in a single city, with specic reality, being necessary the replication in
other locations, as well as the absence of a CG without activities, because
the CG of this study participated in physical education classes, which limits
the perception of the benets of traditional Physical Education classes.
CONCLUSION
e program proposed to schoolchildren provided an increase in Motor
Development (through the General Motor Quotient), especially in Fine
Motor and Balance, indicating that psychomotor interventions are promis-
ing for this purpose.
REFERENCES
1. Geuze RH, Jongmans MJ, Schoemaker MM, Smits-Engelsman BCM. Clinical
and research diagnostic criteria or developmental coordination disorder: a review
and discussion. Hum Mov Sci 2001;20(1-2):7-47.
2. Yarrow K, Brown P, Krak auer JW. Inside the brain of an elite athlete: e neura l pro-
cesses that support high achievement in spor ts. Nat Rev Neuro 2009;10(7):585-96.
3. Barnett LM, Beurden EV, Morgan PJ, Brooks LO, Beard JR. Childhood motor
skill prociency as a predictor of adolescent physical activity. J Adolesc Health
2009; 44(3):252-9.
4. Biscegli TS, Polis LB, Santos LM, Vicentini M. Nutritional status and neurode-
velopment of children enrol led in a day care center. Rev Bras Ped 2007;25(4):323-9.
5. Ferreira A PA , Albuquerque RC, Rabelo ARM, Farias F C, Correia RCB, Gagliardo
HGRG, et al. Comportamento visual e desenvolvimento de recém-nascidos pre-
maturos no pr imeiro mês de vida. Rev Bras Cresc Desenv Hum 2011;21(2):335-43.
6. Ferrarelli LK, Wong W. Focus Issue: Signaling in Neuronal Development, Func-
tion, and Disease. Sci Signal 2014;7(4):1-2.

Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2017, 19(2):150-163 163
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Adriano Zanardi da Silva
Rua Coração de Maria, 92 - BR 116
km 95.
Jardim Botânico, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
CEP: 80215-370
E-mail: zanardiufpr@gmail.com
7. Duarte J, Gargiulo C, Moreno M. School infrastructure and learning in Latin
America n elementary education: an analysis based on the SERCE. Inter-American
Development Bank, Education Division (SCL/EDU) 2011. Disponível em:
<https://publications.iadb. org/handle/11319/5449> [2016 nov 06]
8. Rosa Neto F, Santos APM, Xavier RFC, Amaro KN. A importância da avaliação
motora em escolares: análise da conabilidade da escala de desenvolvimento motor.
Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2010;12(6):422-427.
9. Nazario PF, Vieira JLL. Sport context and the motor development of children.
Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2014;16(1):86-95.
10. Sandroni GA, CIASCA SM, Rodrigues SD. Avaliação da evolução do perl
motor de pré-escolares com necessidades educativas especiais após intervenção
psicomotora breve. Rev Psicopedag 2015;32(97):4-13 .
11. Rosa Neto F. Manual de Avaliação Motora. Porto Alegre: Artmed; 2002.
12. Rosa Neto F, Amaro KN, Prestes DB, Arab, C. O esquema cor poral de cria nças com
diculdade de aprendizagem. Rev Sem Assoc Bra s Psic Esc Educ 2011;15(1):15-22.
13. Santos AM, Rosa Neto F, Pimenta RA. Avaliação das habilidades motoras de
crianças participantes de projetos sociais/esportivos. Motri 2013;9(2):50-60.
14. Miranda TB, Beltrame TS, Cardoso FL. Desempenho motor e estado nutricional
de escolares com e sem transtorno do desenvolvimento da coordenação. Rev Bras
Cineantropom Desemp Humano 2011;13(1):59-66.
15. Medina-Papst J, Marques I. Avaliação do desenvolvimento motor de crianças
com diculdade de aprendizagem. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desemp Humano
2010;12(1):36-42.
16. Camargos ACR, Fontes PLB, Araujo APS, Silva FC, Pereira LP, Souza SMF.
Desenvolvimento motor de crianças pré-termo moderadas aos sete e oito anos de
idade. Fisioter Pesqui 2011;18(2):182-7.
17. Goulardins JB, Marques JCFB, Casella EB. Quality of life and psychomotor
prole of children with attention decit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Arq
Neuro-Psiquiatr 2011;69(4):630-5.
18. Barbosa GO, Munster MA. O efeito de um programa de equoterapia no desen-
volvimento psicomotor de crianças com indicativos de transtorno de décit de
atenção e hiperatividade. Rev Bras Educ Espec 2014;20(1):69-84.
19. Valentini NC, Coutinho MTC, Pansera SM, Santos VAP, Vieira JLL, Ramalho
LH, et al. Prevalência de décits motores e desordem cognitiva desenvolvimental
em crianças da região sul do Brasil. Rev Paul Pediatr 2012;30(3):377-84.
20. Guedes DP, Miranda Neto JT, Germano JM, Lopes V, Silva AJR M. Aptidão física
relacionada à saúde de Escolares: programa tnessgram. Rev Bras Med Esporte
2012;18(2):72-6.
21. Lemos A, Chiviacowsky S, Ávila LTG, Drews R. Efeitos do “feedback” autocon-
trolado na aprendizagem do lançamento da bola da ginástica rítmica. Rev Bras
Educ Fís Esporte 2013;27(3):485-92.
22. Ugrinowitsch H, Lage GM, Santos-Naves SP, Dutra LN, Carvalho MFSP,
Ugrinow itsch A AC. et al. Transition I eciency and victor y in volleybal l matches.
Motriz: Rev Educ Fis 2014;20(1):42-6.
23. Cotrim JR, L emos AG, Néri Júnior JE, Barela JA. Desenvolvimento de habilidades
motoras fundamentais em crianças com diferentes contextos escolares. Rev Educ
Fis/UEM 2011;22(4):523-33.
24. Palma MS, Camargo VA, Pontes MFP. Efeitos da atividade física sistemática
sobre o desempenho motor de crianças pré-escolares. Rev Educ Fis/UEM
2012;23(3):53-63.