Post on 30-Apr-2023
This article was downloaded by:[HEAL- Link Consortium][HEAL- Link Consortium]
On: 5 June 2007Access Details: [subscription number 772811123]Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Early Child Development and CarePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713640830
The effect of residence area and mother's education onmotor development of preschool-aged children inGreece
To cite this Article: Giagazoglou, Paraskevi, Kyparos, Antonios, Fotiadou, Eleni andAngelopoulou, Nickoletta , 'The effect of residence area and mother's education onmotor development of preschool-aged children in Greece', Early Child Developmentand Care, 177:5, 479 - 492To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/03004430600563786URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430600563786
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.
© Taylor and Francis 2007
Dow
nloa
ded
By: [
HEA
L- L
ink
Con
sorti
um] A
t: 12
:16
5 Ju
ne 2
007
Early Child Development and CareVol. 177, No. 5, July 2007, pp. 479–492
ISSN 0300-4430 (print)/ISSN 1476-8275 (online)/07/050479–14© 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/03004430600563786
The effect of residence area and mother’s education on motor development of preschool-aged children in GreeceParaskevi Giagazoglou*, Antonios Kyparos, Eleni Fotiadou and Nickoletta AngelopoulouAristotle University of Thessaloniki, GreeceTaylor and Francis LtdGECD_A_156361.sgm10.1080/03004430600563786Early Childhood Development and Care0300-4430 (print)/1476-8275 (online)Original Article2006Taylor & Francis0000000002006ParaskeviGiagazoglouvgiagazoglou@yahoo.com
Development occurs according to the rhythm that is established by the genetic potential and theinfluence of environmental factors. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of the child’sresidence area and maternal education on child’s motor development. Eight hundred children (384boys and 416 girls, aged 37–72 months), randomly selected from daycare centres and kindergartensof rural and urban areas of Northern Greece, were tested on the two motor subscales (A, locomotor;and D, eye–hand coordination) of the Griffiths Test No II. With respect to their residence, 610 chil-dren lived in urban and 190 lived in rural areas. In terms of education, 530 mothers were formallyeducated and 270 were highly educated. The results of this study suggest that motor developmentof preschool-aged children is associated with both factors examined. Children who lived in urbanareas had better performance on fine motor abilities than children who lived in rural areas. Incontrast, rural children had a higher developmental quotient than urban children on the locomotorscale. With regard to mother’s education, children of highly educated mothers had a higher meandevelopmental quotient on both scales. The findings reinforce the need for a safe and opportunity-rich environment, which ensures that children reach their full developmental potential.
Keywords: Griffiths motor sub-scales; Motor development; Gross motor skills; Fine motor skills; Preschool-aged children; Residence area; Mother’s education; Rural areas; Urban areas
Introduction
Motor skills are an integral part of the total development process, especially duringthe preschool years (Malina & Bouchard, 1991). Poor development of motor and
*Corresponding author. 58 Irodotoy Street, 62125 Serres, Greece.Email: vgiagazoglou@yahoo.com
Dow
nloa
ded
By: [
HEA
L- L
ink
Con
sorti
um] A
t: 12
:16
5 Ju
ne 2
007
480 P. Giagazoglou et al.
social skills in early childhood may have long-term negative consequences for a child’soptimal development (Lansdown et al., 1996; Berlin et al., 1998; Ramey & Ramey,1998; To et al., 2001). Several recent studies have supported the importance of earlychildhood for motor skill development (Gabbard, 2000; Haywood & Getchell, 2001;Payne & Isaacs, 2002).
General systems theory describes human development as influenced by a variety offactors that can facilitate or impair development, including characteristics of the child,caregivers, family, immediate environment and the culture in general (Ramey et al.,1982). Some factors that are associated with the child’s growing environment mayaffect the child’s development, particularly as a child ages and the learning environmentchanges (Allen, 1993; Zeanah et al., 1997; Klebanov et al., 1998; Mott et al., 1998).
The strength of association between biological factors and development diminishesover the first three years of age, while factors that are related to the child’s growingenvironment begin to play an increasingly role as a child ages. Unlike biologicalfactors, which are certain, environmental exposures change over time (Klebanovet al., 1998). An understanding of how risk factors evolve as a child develops isimportant to target early intervention and ensure that children reach their full devel-opmental potential (Amato, 1987; Campell & Ramey, 1994; Barnett, 1998; Berlinet al., 1998; Ramey & Ramey, 1998).
The process of growth and development occurs in a proper rhythm as a result ofgenetic inheritance and environmental factors. Although the stages of psychomotordevelopment are the same for all children worldwide, there are significant differencesin development rate due to the special characteristics of the environment in whichevery child is growing (Griffiths, 1984; Najman et al., 1992; Huston et al., 1994;Lansdown et al., 1996; Brooks-Gunn et al., 1997; Barros et al., 2003). Communitiesoften develop their own social and cultural standards that influence a child’s develop-ment, and these standards are not necessarily equally valued in another culture. Evenin cultures with similarities, it is necessary that a locally valid set of norms or referencevalues are established (Lansdown et al., 1996).
The economic resources of the area where a family lives may affect a child’s devel-opment in a manner that is independent of or interactive with family-level income(Slaughter, 1988; Philips, 1991). A beneficial home-learning environment wouldproduce measurable improvements in children’s development (Duncan et al., 1994).Many studies have indicated that motor development is strongly associated with thestimulation level of the family environment (Poresky et al., 1982; Vazir et al., 1998;Halpern et al., 2000). Highly educated parents would be expected to provide greaterintellectual stimulation and create a home environment that encourages and facili-tates the child’s development. As the mother remains the child’s primary caregiver inmost families, it is likely that her education level will have the strongest impact on thechild’s development (Najman et al., 1992). Furthermore, a mother’s natural ability tointeract with her child has a significant effect on the child’s motor and mental devel-opment (Poresky et al., 1982; Burchinal et al., 1997). Besides, maternal educationallevel can be related directly to income level. Higher educational attainment is associ-ated with increased earnings (Jackson et al., 2000).
Dow
nloa
ded
By: [
HEA
L- L
ink
Con
sorti
um] A
t: 12
:16
5 Ju
ne 2
007
Motor development of Greek preschool children 481
Family income, which is an important indicator of a family’s ability to organize andmanipulate its environment, can directly or indirectly influence a child’s development(Najman et al., 1992). The parent’s preference for residing in an urban or a rural areacould be a potential influencing factor affecting children’s motor skills. High-incomefamilies in Greece usually prefer to live in urban areas where the quality of public andprivate services is high. In early years, a child spends ample time out of home and isexposed to the influence of the neighbourhood environment in which he/she residesas well as the school he/she attends. As the child ages, the neighbourhood environ-ment may become a direct part of his/her cognitive stimulus and thus may affectdevelopment (Klebanov et al., 1998). Additionally, young children benefit develop-mentally by participating in quality childcare centres and preschools (Fuller et al.,1996).
Schools play a major role in providing physical activities that help children todevelop their motor skills and improve their physical and psychological health. Ruraland urban children are usually engaged in similar activities, but the routines involvedin these physical activities could be varied due to the different residence-relatedeffects (Mayer & Jencks, 1989; Crane, 1991; Wilson, 1991). For example, neighbour-hoods and schools that are located in rural areas have much more open play areas,and thus rural children have more alternatives to develop their gross motor skills byparticipating in some activities such as running and chasing (Louie & Chan, 2003).Contrarily, in urban neighbourhoods and schools with relatively little play area, thechildren are mainly provided with indoor play facilities and thus urban childrendevelop their fine motor abilities earlier due to better daily practice.
Information regarding the effects of residence area and mother’s education level onthe motor ability of Greek preschool-aged children is lacking. Thus, the aim of thisstudy was to investigate the influence of these two factors related to the child’s motordevelopment. Particularly, the potential influence of the child’s residence area andmaternal education on gross and fine motor skill development of preschool-agedchildren in Greece was examined.
Method
Participants
Eight hundred children (384 boys and 416 girls aged 37–72 months, mean age 55.6months) randomly selected from daycare centres and kindergartens of rural andurban areas of Northern Greece were assessed. According to their residence, 612children lived in urban and 188 in rural areas. Urban regions were identified as theareas with a population of more than 50,000, and rural areas with a population ofless than 5000.
With respect to mother’s education the sample was divided into two groups: chil-dren whose mothers had 9–12 years of formal education (children of formal educatedmothers (FEM), n = 530) and those whose mothers had post-secondary or tertiaryeducation (children of highly educated mothers (HEM), n = 270). Eighty-six per cent
Dow
nloa
ded
By: [
HEA
L- L
ink
Con
sorti
um] A
t: 12
:16
5 Ju
ne 2
007
482 P. Giagazoglou et al.
of the HEM were employed in governmental positions or worked in the privatesector. In addition, 80% of the HEM were living and working in urban areas. Incontrast, only 48% of the FEM were employed and earned relatively lower wages ascompared with the HEM.
Children with a history of perinatal problems, neurological diseases, sensory distur-bances, premature children and children with epilepsy or other chronic diseases wereexcluded from the study.
Measures
Motor development of the children was assessed using the two motor scales of theGriffiths Test No II. The Griffiths scales are an internationally acknowledged andreliable method for the assessment of development, consisting of six scales withstrong developmental emphasis (Holt, 1991). The major advantage of the scales isthat every subscale gives a different developmental quotient and provides a clear diag-nostic indication of individual problems in early childhood. Griffiths (1984) statedthat:
each subscale was devised to be a separate and complete scale in itself each measuring onlyone avenue of learning or process of development, but measuring this one aspect ascompletely as possible. Also, the Locomotor Scale can be used to supplement observationin studies of physical activities and development in both normal and physically handi-capped children. Or, two Scales such as Scale A (Locomotor) and D (Hand and Eye Co-ordination) might be used in conjunction with one another in an investigation into generalphysical efficiency in certain children. (pp. 34–35)
Scale A (locomotor) consists of items related to gross motor abilities such asrunning, jumping, throwing or kicking a ball and riding a bicycle. Scale A does providea basis for objective observation and a first impression of the general maturity of ayoung child. Scale D (hand and eye coordination) consists of items related to finemotor abilities such as building a tower of cubes, cutting with scissors, copying simplegeometrical shapes, drawing pictures and threading beads on a lace. The test scoreswere transformed into developmental ages and then into quotients: developmentalquotient = developmental age × 100 / chronological age. There are six items for eachyear in each of the two motor scales A and D. The number of items passed is multipliedby two and the results give the developmental age credits in months for each scale.
All children were individually tested by the same investigator in their schools.Certain information, such as ‘if a child can ride a tricycle or other pedal toy’, was elic-ited from the child or the mother by careful questioning. All the items of both scalesA and D were presented in the recommended order given by Griffiths. The parentsgave informed consent for their children to participate.
Statistical analysis
Data are presented as means ± standard deviation. A 2 × 2 analysis of variance wasutilized to determine the effect of residence area (urban versus rural), mother’s
Dow
nloa
ded
By: [
HEA
L- L
ink
Con
sorti
um] A
t: 12
:16
5 Ju
ne 2
007
Motor development of Greek preschool children 483
educational level (formal educated versus high educated) or residence area versusmother’s educational level interaction. The level of statistical significance was set at p< 0.05.
Results
The mean developmental quotients on scale A (locomotor) and scale D (fine motor)with respect to residence area and mother’s educational level are shown in Figures 1and 2, respectively. The data indicated that children who lived in urban areas had asignificantly higher (p < 0.05) developmental quotient on scale D (mean = 105, SD= 14) than children who lived in rural areas (mean = 97, SD = 16). On the locomotorscale, rural children had a significantly higher (p < 0.05) developmental quotient(mean = 114, SD = 16) than urban children (mean = 111 SD = 14). Regardingmother’s education, children of HEM had a significantly higher (p < 0.05) meandevelopmental quotient on both scales (scale A, mean = 114, SD = 14; and scale D,mean = 108, SD = 15) compared with children of FEM (scale A, mean = 110, SD =14; and scale D, mean = 100; SD = 14).Figure 1. Mean locomotor scale quotients according to mother’s education and residence areaFigure 2. Mean hand–eye coordination scale quotients according to mother’s education and residence areaThe analysis of variance showed no interaction between residence area andmother’s educational level in either scale A (F = 0.196; p = 0.66) or scale D (F =2.976; p = 0.85) scale. However, significant main effects were found for residencearea (F = 6.281; p = 0.01 and F = 20.585; p= 0.00) and mother’s education (F =11.271; p = 0.01 and F = 44.943; p = 0.00) on both scales A and D, respectively.
Table 1 presents the 36 items of the locomotor and eye–hand coordinationsubscales and the percentage of the Greek urban and rural children who succeeded
110
114111
114
80
90
100
110
120
130
Urban Rural HEM FEM
Maternal Education
P< 0.05 P< 0.05
Dev
elo
pm
enta
l Qu
otie
nt
Residence Area
Figure 1. Mean locomotor scale quotients according to mother’s education and residence area
Dow
nloa
ded
By: [
HEA
L- L
ink
Con
sorti
um] A
t: 12
:16
5 Ju
ne 2
007
484 P. Giagazoglou et al.
in every item. On the 36 items of the locomotor scale, the rural children obtainedhigher proportions in 35 items while urban children obtained higher proportions onlyin item III 6 (walks upstairs one foot on each step). On the eye–hand coordinationscale, urban children obtained higher proportions in all 36 items.
As concerns the children of HEM and FEM (Table 2), out of the 36 items in thelocomotor scale, children of HEM obtained higher proportions in 31 items (items 8to 36). The children of FEM presented higher proportions of passes only in the firstseven items. On the eye–hand coordination scale, the children of HEM presentedhigher proportions of passes in all 36 items.
Discussion
This study was concerned with the effect that the child’s residence area and maternaleducation had on the child’s motor development. Our findings suggest that motordevelopment of preschool-aged children is associated with both the area the childresides in and their mother’s educational level. These results are consistent with ageneral systems model that describes development as related to the interactionsbetween the child and the surrounding environment.
We have chosen to investigate the mother’s education since it has been suggestedthat the mother’s influence is stronger than the father’s in early childhood (Najmanet al., 1992; Durmazlar et al., 1998). In agreement with previous studies, our datashowed that children of highly educated mothers had higher developmental quotientson both scales as compared with the children of formally educated mothers (Limet al., 1994; Durmazlar et al., 1998; Lejarraga et al., 2002). The results of the presentstudy also demonstrated that the rate of employment was greater in HEM and theyhad more well-paid jobs as compared with FEM. Harris (1996) also points out the
100
108
97
105
80
90
100
110
120
130
Urban Rural HEM FEMResidence Area Maternal Education
P< 0.05P < 0.05
Dev
elo
pm
enta
l Qu
otie
nt
Figure 2. Mean hand–eye coordination scale quotients according to mother’s education and residence area
Dow
nloa
ded
By: [
HEA
L- L
ink
Con
sorti
um] A
t: 12
:16
5 Ju
ne 2
007
Motor development of Greek preschool children 485T
able
1.
Per
cent
ages
of
the
loco
mot
or a
nd t
he h
and
and
eye
coor
dina
tion
sub
scal
es o
f ur
ban
and
rura
l chi
ldre
n in
Gre
ece
Loc
omot
or s
cale
Han
d an
d ey
e co
ordi
nati
on s
cale
Urb
an (
%)
Rur
al (
%)
Urb
an (
%)
Rur
al (
%)
Yea
r II
I1
Jum
ps o
ff s
tep:
bot
h fe
et t
oget
her
98.9
99.7
Hor
izon
tal s
trok
e99
.797
.92
Can
sta
nd o
n on
e fo
ot (
six
plus
se
cond
s)97
.397
.5T
hrea
ds s
ix b
eads
98.5
93.6
3R
ises
fro
m k
neel
ing
100
100
Tow
er o
f ei
ght
plus
bri
cks
100
98.9
4C
ross
es f
eet
and
knee
s si
ttin
g10
010
0H
andl
es s
ciss
ors:
tri
es t
o cu
t99
.398
.45
Can
sta
nd a
nd w
alk
on t
ipto
e98
.998
.4C
opie
s ci
rcle
: pri
mit
ive
mod
el97
.190
.46
Wal
ks u
psta
irs
one
foot
on
each
ste
p95
.297
.2C
opie
s cr
oss:
rec
ogni
zabl
e88
.773
.9
Yea
r IV
7C
an r
un f
ast
indo
ors
93.6
96.1
Fol
ds a
fou
r-in
ches
squ
are
once
96.1
928
Can
run
a t
ricy
cle
97.3
97.5
Thr
eads
12
bead
s (n
ot p
atte
rn)
96.6
87.8
9M
arch
es t
o m
usic
89.4
93C
an c
ut s
quar
e in
to t
wo
piec
es87
.973
.910
Wal
ks a
cha
lk li
ne88
.395
.1F
olds
fou
r-in
ches
squ
are
twic
e87
.771
.811
Hop
s on
one
foo
t63
.874
.3C
opie
s la
dder
77.1
52.7
12Ju
mps
off
tw
o st
eps
78.2
82.4
Dra
ws
‘a m
an’ r
ecog
niza
bly
68.6
42
Yea
r V
13C
an r
un t
o ki
ck a
bal
l77
.781
Dra
ws
a go
od c
ross
67.8
44.7
14W
alks
dow
nsta
irs
1 fo
ot o
n ea
ch s
tep
61.7
71.2
Cir
cle,
goo
d sh
ape
and
clos
ed45
.828
.715
Tou
ches
toe
s kn
ees
stra
ight
52.7
63.7
Squ
are
reco
gniz
able
67.3
39.9
16C
an ju
mp
six
inch
es r
ope
feet
tog
ethe
r61
.272
.2W
indo
w, s
tage
156
31.4
17C
an c
limb
on o
r of
f a
bus
59.6
70.6
Hou
se (
a)58
.834
.618
Can
run
ups
tair
s45
.750
.8S
ciss
ors:
can
str
ip e
dge
off
69.9
50
Dow
nloa
ded
By: [
HEA
L- L
ink
Con
sorti
um] A
t: 12
:16
5 Ju
ne 2
007
486 P. Giagazoglou et al.T
able
1.
Con
tinue
d
Loc
omot
or s
cale
Han
d an
d ey
e co
ordi
nati
on s
cale
Urb
an (
%)
Rur
al (
%)
Urb
an (
%)
Rur
al (
%)
Yea
r V
I19
Can
bou
nce
and
catc
h a
ball
55.9
60.9
Thr
eads
12
bead
s pa
tter
n53
.134
.620
Can
run
fas
t ou
t of
doo
rs52
.158
.2T
rian
gle
(a)
48.4
27.7
21C
an t
hrow
up
and
catc
h a
ball
22.9
32.5
Dra
ws
‘a m
an’:
sta
ge 2
46.4
28.7
22C
an h
op–s
kip
four
plu
s st
eps
38.8
50.2
Mak
es t
hree
lett
ers
36.3
23.4
23Ju
mps
off
thr
ee s
teps
3437
.3W
rite
or
prin
t fi
rst
nam
e21
.914
.924
Hop
scot
ch I
13.3
27.3
Hou
se (
b)27
.111
.7
Yea
r V
II25
Can
jum
p ov
er a
rop
e 10
inch
es28
.235
.1C
opy
a sq
uare
(b)
16.2
6.9
26H
op–s
kips
fre
ely
indo
ors
7.4
11.8
Dra
ws
a la
dder
(b)
16.7
6.4
27H
opsc
otch
II
(tw
o ho
ps)
2.7
7D
raw
s di
amon
d (a
)6.
42.
728
Can
run
all
roun
d pl
aygr
ound
12.8
21.6
Dra
ws
tria
ngle
(b)
7.4
1.6
29C
an s
kip
wit
h ro
pe t
hree
plu
s0
0.8
Can
wri
te f
igur
es t
o ni
ne2.
10.
530
Hop
scot
ch I
II (
thre
e ho
ps)
03.
3C
an w
rite
ful
l nam
e2.
80.
5
Yea
r V
III
31R
uns
dow
nsta
irs
2.1
7M
akes
lett
ers
(10)
2.6
0.5
32Ju
mps
off
fou
r pl
us s
teps
2.1
7.2
Dra
ws
win
dow
: sta
ge 2
61.
133
Rid
es a
bic
ycle
(tw
o-w
heel
er)
2.2
8.3
‘Man
’: s
tage
31.
30.
534
Hop
scot
ch I
V (
four
hop
s)0
1.1
Dia
mon
d, g
ood
shap
e an
d dr
awin
g0.
20
35F
ast
sing
le s
kipp
ing
00.
3D
iam
ond,
goo
d sh
ape
and
draw
ing
0.2
0
36S
kips
wel
l 12
plus
(or
dina
ry s
kipp
ing)
00.
3L
ette
rs (
24)
0.2
0.2
Dow
nloa
ded
By: [
HEA
L- L
ink
Con
sorti
um] A
t: 12
:16
5 Ju
ne 2
007
Motor development of Greek preschool children 487T
able
2.
Per
cent
ages
of
the
loco
mot
or a
nd t
he h
and
and
eye
coor
dina
tion
sub
scal
es o
f ch
ildre
n of
HE
M a
nd F
EM
in G
reec
e
Loc
omot
or s
cale
Han
d an
d ey
e co
ordi
nati
on s
cale
HE
M (
%)
FE
M (
%)
HE
M (
%)
FE
M (
%)
Yea
r II
I1
Jum
ps o
ff s
tep:
bot
h fe
et t
oget
her
98.9
99.8
Hor
izon
tal s
trok
e99
.399
.22
Can
sta
nd o
n on
e fo
ot (
six
plus
sec
onds
)97
97.7
Thr
eads
six
bea
ds97
.497
.43
Ris
es f
rom
kne
elin
g10
010
0T
ower
of
eigh
t pl
us b
rick
s99
.699
.64
Cro
sses
fee
t an
d kn
ees
sitt
ing
99.3
100
Han
dles
sci
ssor
s: t
ries
to
cut
99.3
99.1
5C
an s
tand
and
wal
k on
tip
toe
9799
.2C
opie
s ci
rcle
: pri
mit
ive
mod
el97
94.7
6W
alks
ups
tair
s on
e fo
ot o
n ea
ch s
tep
95.9
97.2
Cop
ies
cros
s: r
ecog
niza
ble
86.3
84.7
Yea
r IV
7C
an r
un f
ast
indo
ors
95.2
95.7
Fol
ds a
fou
r-in
ches
squ
are
once
96.7
94.3
8C
an r
un a
tri
cycl
e98
.197
.2T
hrea
ds 1
2 be
ads
(not
pat
tern
)94
.894
.39
Mar
ches
to
mus
ic93
.791
.3C
an c
ut s
quar
e in
to t
wo
piec
es87
.883
10W
alks
a c
halk
line
93.7
93.4
Fol
ds f
our-
inch
es s
quar
e tw
ice
87.4
82.3
11H
ops
on o
ne f
oot
74.1
70.8
Cop
ies
ladd
er77
.468
.312
Jum
ps o
ff t
wo
step
s82
.280
.9D
raw
s ‘a
man
’ rec
ogni
zabl
y68
.159
.4
Yea
r V
13C
an r
un t
o ki
ck a
bal
l80
80D
raw
s a
good
cro
ss69
.658
.714
Wal
ks d
owns
tair
s on
e fo
ot o
n ea
ch s
tep
74.1
66.4
Cir
cle,
goo
d sh
ape
and
clos
ed48
.138
.515
Tou
ches
toe
s kn
ees
stra
ight
65.6
58.9
Squ
are
reco
gniz
able
67.8
57.4
16C
an ju
mp
six
inch
es r
ope
feet
tog
ethe
r71
.968
.5W
indo
w, s
tage
158
.945
.817
Can
clim
b on
or
off
a bu
s73
65.5
Hou
se (
a)60
.449
.418
Can
run
ups
tair
s55
.946
.4S
ciss
ors:
can
str
ip e
dge
off
68.9
63.4
Dow
nloa
ded
By: [
HEA
L- L
ink
Con
sorti
um] A
t: 12
:16
5 Ju
ne 2
007
488 P. Giagazoglou et al.T
able
2.
Con
tinue
d
Loc
omot
or s
cale
Han
d an
d ey
e co
ordi
nati
on s
cale
HE
M (
%)
FE
M (
%)
HE
M (
%)
FE
M (
%)
Yea
r V
I19
Can
bou
nce
and
catc
h a
ball
61.1
59.1
Thr
eads
12
bead
s pa
tter
n58
.144
20C
an r
un f
ast
out
of d
oors
61.5
54.3
Tri
angl
e (a
)50
.739
.821
Can
thr
ow u
p an
d ca
tch
a ba
ll33
28.9
Dra
ws
‘a m
an’:
sta
ge 2
49.6
38.5
22C
an h
op–s
kip
four
plu
s st
eps
54.1
44.2
Mak
es t
hree
lett
ers
4029
.823
Jum
ps o
ff t
hree
ste
ps43
33.2
Wri
te o
r pr
int
firs
t na
me
22.2
19.2
24H
opsc
otch
I27
.422
.3H
ouse
(b)
28.5
20.9
Yea
r V
II25
Can
jum
p ov
er a
rop
e 10
inch
es42
.229
.1C
opy
a sq
uare
(b)
20.7
10.6
26H
op–s
kips
fre
ely
indo
ors
15.6
8.3
Dra
ws
a la
dder
(b)
21.9
10.4
27H
opsc
otch
II
(tw
o ho
ps)
7.4
5.3
Dra
ws
diam
ond
(a)
74.
728
Can
run
all
roun
d pl
aygr
ound
26.3
16D
raw
s tr
iang
le (
b)7
5.5
29C
an s
kip
wit
h ro
pe t
hree
plu
s0.
70.
6C
an w
rite
fig
ures
to
nine
1.5
1.9
30H
opsc
otch
III
(th
ree
hops
)3
2.3
Can
wri
te f
ull n
ame
2.2
2.3
Yea
r V
III
31R
uns
dow
nsta
irs
7.8
4.9
Mak
es le
tter
s (1
0)3.
31.
532
Jum
ps o
ff f
our
plus
ste
ps7.
45.
3D
raw
s w
indo
w: s
tage
25.
94.
333
Rid
es a
bic
ycle
(tw
o-w
heel
er)
108.
7‘M
an’:
sta
ge 3
1.5
0.9
34H
opsc
otch
IV
(fo
ur h
ops)
1.5
0.6
Dia
mon
d, g
ood
shap
e an
d dr
awin
g0
0
35F
ast
sing
le s
kipp
ing
0.4
0.2
Dia
mon
d, g
ood
shap
e an
d dr
awin
g0
0
36S
kips
wel
l 12
plus
(or
dina
ry s
kipp
ing)
0.4
0.2
Let
ters
(24
)0.
40
Dow
nloa
ded
By: [
HEA
L- L
ink
Con
sorti
um] A
t: 12
:16
5 Ju
ne 2
007
Motor development of Greek preschool children 489
importance of maternal education, which is associated with access to greater labourmarket income.
Motor development is strongly associated with the stimulation level of the familyenvironment (Solomon & Solomon, 1975; Ueda, 1978; Porersky et al., 1982; Silvaet al., 1985; Vazir et al., 1998; Halpern et al., 2000). Children who have been raisedin a stimulating home environment may posses a greater number and variety of toys.They may also be encouraged to develop skills, such as fine motor abilities, which willbe useful for their later school performance. Parks and Bradley (1991) suggested thatmore favourable hand development was associated with greater availability of appro-priate play materials. Homes that were likely to have higher availability of appropriateplay were ones in which the infants were more likely to have access to the types of toysthat would facilitate eye–hand coordination.
In contrast, the poorer training on hand use (drawing, playing with games, etc.) mayprobably contribute to the relative delay found in the fine motor abilities of the chil-dren of FEM. Much sensorial information is acquired by playing, when the toys actas tools with which the child develops his/her fine motor abilities (Huston et al., 1994;Stein et al., 2001). In this early period (during preschool years), the child’s perma-nence in a favourable environment will facilitate a normal development and offerpossibilities to a fine potential of exploration and interaction (Andraca et al., 1998).
Concerning children’s residence, the results of the present study showed that urbanchildren attained higher quotients than rural children on scale D, a finding that isconsistent with a previous study (Lansdown et al., 1996). A possible explanation forthe better performance of children who live in towns could be the increased numberof working women in Greece. Especially in urban areas, most children who go todaycare centres and kindergarten from a very young age. Consequently, the activitiesthat develop the hand muscles and the fine mobility are likely to be gained faster indaycare centres and kindergarten due to daily practice, a finding that is consistentwith previous studies (Porersky & Henderson, 1982; Vazir et al., 1998; Stein et al.,2001; Barros et al., 2003; Giagazoglou et al., 2005).
On the contrary, the fact that there was a relative delay in the attainment of grossmotor skills in urban children may reflect a wider variation between urban and ruralliving conditions in Greece. Rural areas in Greece have more open space for playingand more playgrounds with climbing apparatus (e.g. monkey bars, slides, swings).This gives rural children the opportunity to spend more time playing, and conse-quently more exercise and improvement of their motor skills. Similar conclusionswere reached from a study conducted in Hong Kong (Louie & Chan, 2003). Louieand Chan suggested that rural children were more physically active than their urbancounterparts, probably due to limited play space available in urban areas. Children inschools with more play space located in rural areas could take part in some form offree running and chasing activities in the spacious open play area.
On the other hand, the big buildings and the limited space for playing outdoors,restraining or limiting activities of urban children outside the home and thus playbehaviour, may be a contributory factor to differences in gross motor skills. Besides,other research (Victora et al., 1990; Giagazoglou et al., 2005) suggests that the
Dow
nloa
ded
By: [
HEA
L- L
ink
Con
sorti
um] A
t: 12
:16
5 Ju
ne 2
007
490 P. Giagazoglou et al.
features of different cultures, which stress spontaneous, informal, playful and physi-cally active kinds of behaviour, may influence children’s gross motor abilities.
The observation that children reared in a less stimulated environment experiencerelative delays in gross and fine motor abilities raises questions to do with appropriatesocial and welfare policies. These policies should try to reduce any dimension ofsocio-economic inequality and to improve parents’ education levels, which are likelyto have the most considerable impact on child development. It has been reported inother studies that children who are offered an adequate infrastructure of equipmentand appropriate care will have more opportunities for an appropriate development ofmotor abilities (Vigiano et al., 1998; Stein et al., 2001).
Environment events that occur during early childhood and the abilities of preschoolchildren are key determinants for later development (Durmazlar et al., 1998). The useof recreational activities in the training of gross and fine motor abilities and a safe andopportunity-rich environment favours the normal motor development (Barros et al.,2003). The educator’s and parent’s role is vital in promoting motor skills. To assurethese skills, a satisfactory learning environment must be provided, not only in cogni-tive and affective domains, but also in the psychomotor domain. Thus, parents andeducators should prescribe large outdoor and indoor play areas and use teachingpractices that promote children’s motor development through motor activities andgames related to their everyday reality. The positive support for the development ofthe gross and the fine motor skills during preschool age could improve the process ofdevelopment.
References
Allen, M. C. (1993) The high risk infant, Preventive Medicine, 40, 479–490.Amato, P. (1987) Children in Australian families: the growth of competence (New York, Prentice Hall).Andraca I., Pino P., Lappara A., Rivera F. & Castillo M. (1998) Factores de riesgo para el
desarrollo psicomotor en lactentes nacidos en optimas condiciones biologicas, Rev. SaudePublica, 32, 134–147.
Barnett, W. S. (1998) Long-term cognitive and academic effects of early childhood education onchildren in poverty, Preventive Medicine, 27, 204–207.
Barros, K. M., Fragoso, A. G., Oliveira, A. L., Cabral-Filho, J. E. & Castro, R. M. (2003) Doenvironmental influences alter motor abilities acquisition? A comparison among children fromday-care centers and private schools, Arquivos de Neuropsiquiatria, 61(2A), 170–175.
Berlin, L. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., McCarton, C. & McCormick, M. C. (1998) The effectiveness ofearly intervention: examining risk factors and pathways to enhanced development, PreventiveMedicine, 27, 238–245.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Klebanov, P. & Duncan, G. (1997) The effects of poverty on children, TheFuture of Children, 7, 55–71.
Burchinal, M., Campell, F., Bryant, D., Wasik, B. & Ramey, C. (1997) Early intervention incognitive performance of children of low-income African American families, ChildDevelopment, 68(5), 935–954.
Campbell, F. A. & Ramey, C. T. (1994) Effects of early intervention on intellectual and academicachievement: a follow-up study from low-income families, Child Development, 65, 684–698.
Crane, J. (1991) The epidemic theory of ghettos and neighborhood effects on dropping out andteenage childbearing, American Journal of Sociology, 96, 1126–1159.
Dow
nloa
ded
By: [
HEA
L- L
ink
Con
sorti
um] A
t: 12
:16
5 Ju
ne 2
007
Motor development of Greek preschool children 491
Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J. & Klebanov, P. K. (1994) Economic deprivation and earlychildhood development, Child Development, 65, 296–318.
Durmazlar, N., Ozturk, C., Ural, B., Karaagaoglou, E. & Anlar, B. (1998) Turkish children’sperformance on Denver II: effect of sex and mother’s education, Developmental Medicine &Child Neurology, 40, 411–416.
Fuller, B., Holloway, S. & Liang, X. (1996) Family selection of child care centres. Theinfluence of household, support, ethnicity and parental practices, Child Development, 67,3320–3337.
Gabbard, C. P. (2000) Lifelong motor development (3rd edn) (Madison Dubuque, IA, Brown &Benchmark).
Giagazoglou, P., Tsimaras, V., Fotiadou, E., Evaggelinou, C., Tsikoulas, J. & Angelopoulou, N.(2005) Standardization of the motor scales of the Griffiths Test II on children 3 to 6 years inGreece, Child Care Health and Development, 31(3), 321–330.
Griffiths, R. (1984) The abilities of young children. A comprehensive system of mental measurement forthe first eight years of life (London, The Test Agency).
Halpern, R., Giuliani, E. R., Victora, C. G., Barros, F. C. & Bernardo, L. (2000) Fatores de riscopara suspeita de atraso do desenvolvimento neuropsicomotor aos 12 meses de vida, JournalPediatrics, 76, 421–428.
Harris, K. M. (1996) Life after welfare: women work and repeat dependency, American SociologicalReview, 61, 407–426.
Haywood, K. M. & Getchell, N. (2001) Lifespan motor development (3rd edn) (Champaign, IL,Human Kinetics).
Holt, K. S. (1991) Child development: diagnosis and assessment (London, Butterworth-Heinemann).Huston, A., McLoyd, V. & Garcia-Coll, C. (1994) Children in poverty: issues in contemporary
research, Child Development, 65, 275–282.Jackson, A. P., Brooks-Gunn, J., Huang, C. & Glassman, M. (2000) Single mothers in low-wage
jobs: financial strain, parenting, and preschoolers’ outcomes, Child Development, 71(5),1409–1423.
Klebanov, P. K., Brooks-Gunn, J., McCarton, C. & McCormick, M. C. (1998) The contributionof neighborhood and family income to developmental test scores over the first 3 years of life,Child Development, 69, 1420–1436.
Lansdown, R., Goldstein, H., Shah, P., Orley, J., Kaul, K., et al. (1996) Culturally appropriatemeasures for monitoring child development and community level: a who collaborative study,Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 74, 283–290.
Lejarraga, H., Pascucci, M. C., Krupitzky, S., Kelmansky, D., Bianco, A., Martinez, E., et al.(2002) Psychomotor development in Argentina children aged 0–5 years, Paediatric and Perina-tal Epidemiology, 16, 47–60.
Lim, H.C., Chan, T. & Yoong, T. (1994) Standardization and adaptation of the Denver Develop-mental Screening Test (DDST) and Denver II for use in Singapore children, SingaporeMedical Journal, 35, 156–160.
Louie, L. & Chan, L. (2003) The use of pedometry to evaluate the physical activities levels amongpreschool children in Hong Kong, Early Child Development and Care, 173(1), 97–107.
Malina, R. M. & Bouchard, C. (1991) Growth, maturation and physical activity (Champaign, IL,Human Kinetics), 171–186.
Mayer, S. E. & Jencks, C. C. (1989) Growing up in poor neighbourhoods: how much does itmatter?, Science, 243, 1441–1446.
Mott, F. L., Baker, P. C., Ball, D. E., Keck, C. C. & Lenhart, S. M. (1998) The NLSY children1992: description and evaluation, revised (Columbus, OH, Center of Human ResourceResearch, The Ohio State University).
Najman, J., Bor, W., Morrison, J., Anderson, M. & Williams, G. (1992) Child development delayand socioeconomic disadvantage in Australia: a longitudinal study, Social Sciences andMedicine, 34, 829–835.
Dow
nloa
ded
By: [
HEA
L- L
ink
Con
sorti
um] A
t: 12
:16
5 Ju
ne 2
007
492 P. Giagazoglou et al.
Parks, P. L. & Bradley, R. H. (1991) The interaction of home environment features and theirrelation to infant competence, Infant Mental Health Journal, 12, 3–16.
Payne, V. G. & Isaacs, L. D. (2002) Human motor development: a Lifespan approach (5th edn)(Boston, MA, McGrawHill).
Philips, D. A. (1991) With a little help: children in poverty and children care, in: A. Huston (Ed.)Children in poverty: child development and public policy (New York, Cambridge UniversityPress), 158–189.
Poresky, R. H. & Henderson, M. L. (1982) Infant’s mental and motor development: effects ofhome environment, maternal attitudes, marital adjustment and socioeconomic status, Percep-tual and Motor Skills, 53, 695–702.
Ramey, C. T., MacPhee, D. & Yeates, K. O. (1982) Preventing developmental retardation: ageneral systems model, in: L. A. Bond & J. M. Joffe (Eds) Facilitating infant and early childhooddevelopment (Hanover, NH, University Press of New England).
Ramey, C. T. & Ramey, S. L. (1998) Prevention of intellectual disabilities: early interventions toimprove cognitive development, Preventive Medicine, 27, 224–232.
Silva, P. A., McGee, R., Thomas, J. & Williams, S. (1985) A descriptive study of socioeconomicstatus and child development in Dunedin five year olds, New Zealand Journal of EducationStudies, 17, 21–32.
Slaughter, D. T. (Ed.) (1988) New directions for child development: Vol. 42. Black children andpoverty: a developmental perspective (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).
Solomons, G. & Solomons, H. C. (1975) Motor development in Yucatecan infants, DevelopmentalMedicine & Child Neurology, 17, 41–46.
Stein, M. T., Bennet, F. C. & Abbott, M. B. (2001) Early delay in motor development, Journal ofDevelopmental Behavioral Pediatrics, 22(Suppl 2), S93–S98.
To, T., Gadarette, S. M. & Liu, Y. (2001) Biological, social, and environmental correlates ofpreschool development, Child: Care, Health and Development, 27(2), 187–200.
Ueda, R. (1978) Standardization of the DDST on Tokyo children, Developmental Medicine &Child Neurology, 20, 617–656.
Vazir, S., Naidu, N. A. & Vidyasagar, P. (1998) Nutritional status, psychological development andhome environment of Indian rural children, Journal of the Indian Academy of Pediatrics, 35,959–966.
Victora, M., Victora, C. & Barros, F. (1990) Corss-cultural differences in developmental rates. Acomparison between British and Brazilian children, Child: Care, Health and Development,16(3), 151–164.
Vigiano, A. P., Reis, C. R., Recalde, C. C. S., Mello, J. I. S. C., Suenari, L. & Affara, C. R. (1998)A importancia em estimular as fases do desenvolvimento motor normal de 0 a 18 meses,Fisioter Mov, 10, 31–41.
Wilson, W. J. (1991) Studying inner-city social dislocations: the challenge of public agendaresearch, American Sociological Review, 56, 1–14.
Zeanah, C. H., Boris, N. W. & Larrieu, J. A. (1997) Infant development and developmental risks:a review of the past 10 years, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychia-try, 36, 165–178.