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.