6 / Brief resume of the intended work:
6.1Need for the study:
“It is the process in the change in motor behavior that is related to change in age of individual”1
There are number of factors positively associated with physical activity in children including self efficacy is one’s ability to overcome barriers to physical or sport competence having positive attitudes towards physical education, enjoying physical activity and parent, sibling and peer support.1Children with poor motor proficiency may subsequently choose a more sedentary lifestyle
to avoid these movement difficulties.
These are several factors that may be related to lower levels of coordination in children.Ex: more over weight child may be less coordinated than leaner children and this relationship may extend to infant weight and motor activity relationships.
Motor skills may also be related to self-efficacy of confidence in physical activity. “Early childhood is a critical period for brain development and formation of behavior”, warns Dr. Pagani “High levels of TV consumption during this period can lead to future unhealthy habits”.2
Despite clear recommendation from the American Academy of Pediatrics suggestion less than two hours of TV per day-beyond the age of two- parents show poor factual knowledge and awareness of such existing guidelines.2
A 7% decrease in classroom engagement,A 6% decrease in math achievement (with no harmful effects on later reading), A 10% increase in victimization by classmates (peer rejection, being teased, assaulted or insulted by other students), A 13% decrease in weekend physical activity16 , A 9% decrease in general physical activity,A non percent higher consumption of soft drinks16 ,A 10% peak in snacks intake,A 5% increase in BMI2
Indoor games may provide intellectual stimulation, develop manual dexterity and expand artistic creativity. Outdoor games, the children have more room to increase their gross motor development, build self confidence and expand energy in ways that lead to a lifetime of fitness consciousness.2
The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency as a premier instrument for measuring gross and fine motor skills. The Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency –BOTMP, (Bruininks, 1978) consists of 46 items grouped under eight different subtests of motor proficiency for children between 4.5 and 14.5 years of age.3The scoring system varies with each item, ranging from a 2-point (pass/fail) to a 16-point scale.The number of performance trials for each item is specified. A raw score is recorded in the unit measured (e.g. seconds, number of catches) and then converted to a numerical point score.3More over it take very less duration around 15-20 mins. Most widely used motor proficiency test. New easel administration format. Improved manipulative, including a wider, more durable balance beam. Game-like tasks that capture and hold students’ interest. Not verbally complex.3
These tests are running speed and agility (subtest 1/item 1), balance/walking forward heel-to-toe on walking line (subtest 2/item 6), bilateral coordination/tapping-foot and finger on same side synchronized (subtest 3/item 2), strength/standing broad jump (subtest 4/item 1), response speed (subtest 6/item 1), visual motor control/cutting out a circle with preferred hand (subtest 7/item 1), upper-limb speed and dexterity/pacing pennies in two boxes with both hands (subtest 8/item 2). The relationship between motor proficiency and physical activity in 8 to 10 years old children using an objective measure of physical activity and a comprehensive measure of motor proficiency.3
Though, this study is mainly based on motor proficiency between the children in the village and city schools to prove that the which major of school children ratio more efficient as many articles are based proving between the children with low motor and high motor in same but not have done in the different based background children and selected this scale due to its more validity and more number of items which include from fine skills to gross motor skills in children.
Hypothesis:
There will be significant difference in motor development village school children group and city school children group.
6.2 Review of Literature:
Monika Haga(2009) conducted study on to examine how physical fitness developed over time in 2 groups of children: those with a low level of competence in motor skills (low motor competence [LMC]), and those with a high level of competence in motor skills (high motor competence [HMC]) and concluded that Children with LMC are likely to have poor physical fitness compared with children with HMC. The differences in physical fitness outcomes between the groups were relatively constant over time. Given that various physical fitness components are linked to different health outcomes, these consequences are matters of concern for both current health status and later health status in children with LMC.4
Antonis Kambas, Nickos Aggeloussis (2006), conducted study on The construct validity of the short form of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency for the assessment of gross and fine motor skills was assessed in 377 nondisabled Greek preschool and primary school children (age 5 yrs to 8.3 months) and concluded that Age confirmed a statistically significant effect on the scores of the half items of the test battery, also an earlier finding. This test seemed to be a valid test of motor proficiency in normal Greek preschool and primary school children.5
L. LeunensS. Celestin-Westreich,M. Bonduelle,I. Liebaers andI. Ponjaert Kristoffersen (2006) conducted study on As a continuation of two large-scale, multicentre studies on the development of 5-year-old ICSI children, we present results of the follow-up study undertaken on the cognitive and motor development of 8-year-old ICSI children and concluded that In this follow-up study, ICSI and SC children show a comparable cognitive and motor development until the age of 8 years. 6
Brian H. Wrotniak, Leonard H. Epstein, Joan M. Dorn, Katherine E. Jones and Valerie A. Kondilis (2006) conducted study on youth with better motor abilities may find it easier to be physically active and may be more likely to engage in physical activity compared with peers with poorer motor competence. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between motor proficiency and physical activity in 8- to 10-year-old children.Self-efficacy toward physical activity was also assessed and concluded that Motor proficiency is positively associated with physical activity andinversely associated with sedentary activity in children, but there may be a threshold of motor proficiency above which children may be the most physically active. Children’s motor proficiency may be an appropriate target for increasing physical activity in youth.7
CGraf, BKoch, EKretschmann-Kandel, GFalkowski, HChrist, SCoburger WLehmacher, BBjarnason-Wehrens, PPlaten, WTokarski, H GPredel and SDordel(2003) conducted study on Overweight/obesity is associated with a poorer body gross motor development and endurance performance. On the other hand, an active lifestyle is positively correlated with a better gross motor development in first-grade children and concluded that to prevent the negative consequences of physical inactivity and overweight/obesity early intervention to support exercise and movement is recommended. Increased body mass in first-grade children correlates with poorer results in gross motor development and endurance performance. On the other hand, it is shown that active leisure behavior is accompanied with the best results of gross motor development, whereas sedentary habits like television viewing correlates slightly with poorer gross motor development.8
Franjoine, Mary Rose MS, PT, PCS; Gunther, Joan S. PhD, PT; Taylor, Mary Jean MA, PT, PCS (2003) conducted study on The Pediatric Balance Scale (PBS), a modification of Berg's Balance Scale, was developed as a balance measure for school-age children with mild to moderate motor impairments. The purpose of this study was to determine the test-retest and interrater reliability of the PBS and Concluded that The PBS has been demonstrated to have good test-retest and interrater reliability when used with school-age children with mild to moderate motor impairments.9
Judy FlegelThubi HA Kolobe(2002) conducted study As the survival rate of infants who are born prematurely increases, the need for accuracy in early identification and prediction of developmental outcome in these infants is imperative. This study examined the predictive validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP) and the relationship between perinatal risk and motor performance in children who are of school age and concluded that The TIMP and POPRAS may be viable instruments that can be used together to identify infants who are at risk for poor long-term motor performance.10
B. C. M. Smits-Engelsman, A. S. Niemeije, and G. P. van Galen (2001) conducted study on a sample of 125 children from grades 4 and 5 of two normal Dutch primary schools were investigated regarding the incidence of handwriting problems and other fine motor disabilities and concluded that The analysis confirmed that serious handwriting problems are accompanied by fine motor deficits. We suggest that in these children an enhanced level of neuromotor noise is compensated for by enhanced phasic stiffness of the limb system. This results in higher movement velocity and fewer velocity peaks. In the children who received physiotherapy the quality of handwriting improved.11
Denckla, M. B. (1974), conducted study on The motor co-ordination performance of 156 normal, right-handed children (age-range five to 11 years) was measured. Tests of foot taps, heel-toe alternation, hand pats, arm pronation/supination, fist opening/closing, repetitive index-finger to thumb taps and successive taps of each finger to thumb were timed for speed, i.e. time taken to perform 20 movements on each test. Tests of balancing on each foot alone and hopping on each foot were also timed and concluded that the concept of lateral preference and motor performance being manifestations of cerebral dominance, as modified by age and sex.12
6.3 Objective of the study
To evaluate the significance of motor proficiency between city and village school children by Bruininks Oseretsky Test.
7 / Materials and Methods:
7.1Source of data
  • Village schools, Andhra Pradesh
  • City schools, Andhra Pradesh
7.2 Method of collection of data:
  • Population : - subjects from school children between age group of 5 to 8 years.
  • Sample design : - simple random sampling.
  • Sample size : - 100.
  • Type of Study : - compare study.
Inclusion criteria:
  • Age between 5-8 years
  • Normal hearing and vision village schools children
  • Normal hearing and vision city schools children
  • Only boys
Exclusion criteria:
  • Physical and motor deficits,
  • History of seizures ,
  • Language or, acceleration disorders,
  • Children with mental retarded.
  • Children with cardio-respiratory disorders.
  • Children with malnutrition.
Measuring Tools:
  • Weight machine
  • Inch tape
  • stop watch
  • marker
7.2Methodology:
Subjects who fulfilling the inclusion criteria will be included in this study. A written consent form will be taken from each of the subjects prior to participation. Schools which will be enclosed in this study will be explaining about my thesis and subjects who are participating in this are explained about this procedure and made them to perform it.
Total school children collected for this are around 100 members (each group 50) from village and city schools and placed divided into two groups.
Duration this study is takes from each child from 20–30 mins it is done for one session.
From this study only four subtests are used they are :
  • Running speed and agility,
  • Bilateral coordination,
  • Strength,
  • Response speed.
In this first one i.e. running speed and agility subject is made to run in 15 yard (13 mts) and at the end of 15 yard length around 5 blocks are placed over there we start the stop watch till the subject go to those blocks and get those all blocks one by one within short time because time varies from age to age as age increase time decreases. Starting time is 4 mins.The second one i.e. bilateral coordination they are around seven items in it in this it requires both use of upper and lower extremities simultaneously or in sequential movement and it this seven items are:
  • Tapping foot alternatively while making circles with fingers.
  • Tapping foot and finger on same side synchronized.
  • Tapping foot and finger on opposite side synchronized.
  • Jumping in place leg and arm on same side.
  • Jumping in place leg and arm on opposite side.
  • Jumping up and clapping hands.
  • Jumping up and touch heels with hands.
  • Drawing lines and crosses simultaneously
Third one is strength item in this they are three items they are standing on board and jumping (in trampoline), sit ups and pushups these are taken more no off done in 30 secs to one min.And the last one is subjects’ response to speed like sudden catch of falling object. In this it taken the best of three one and the shortest time subject does it. This is to test the reflexes of the subjects. All these four items are done for each child it takes the duration of 20 to 30 mins.
Statistics:
Mann – Whitney “U” Test to compare the results between the groups.
7.4 Ethical Clearance:-
As this study involve human subjects, the ethical clearance has been obtained from the ethical committee of Padmashree institute of physiotherapy, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore, as per ethical guidelines research from biomedical research on human subjects, 2000, ICMR, New Delhi.
8 /

List of References:

  1. Jan Stephan tecklin, pediatrics physical therapy, 3rd edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, New York, 1999, pg-1.
  2. Linda S. Pagani, Caroline Fitzpatrick, Tracie A. Barnett, Eric Dubow.Prospective Associations between Early Childhood Television Exposure and Academic, Psychosocial, and Physical Well-being by Middle Childhood.Archives of Pediatrics and AdolescentMedicine, 2010; 164 (5): 425 DOI:10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.50
  3. T. Balakrishnan,Chavan Sasidhar Rao, Interrater Reliability Of Bilateral Coordination Ofbruininks Oseretsky Test Of Motor Proficiency(Botmp) & Performance Of Indian Childrencompared With Usa Norms, The Indian Journal of Occupational Therapy : Vol. XXXVIII : No. 3 (December 06 - March 2007).
  4. Monika Haga- Physical Fitness in Children With High Motor Competence Is Different From That in Children With Low Motor Competence APTA 2009; 89:1089-1097.
  5. Antonis Kambas, Nickos Aggeloussis (2006) Construct Validity Of The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test Of Motor Proficiency-Short Form For A Sample Of Greek Preschool And Primary School Children. Perceptual and Motor Skills: Volume 102, Issue, pp. 65-75.
  6. L. LeunensS. Celestin-Westreich. M, Bonduelle,I. Liebaers and I. Ponjaert KristoffersenCognitive and motor development of 8-year-old children born after ICSI compared to spontaneously conceived children: oxford journals volume 21,issue 11,Pp.2922-2929.
  7. Brian H. Wrotniak, PT, PhD, Leonard H. Epstein, PhD, Joan M. Dorn, PhD, Katherine E. Jones, Valerie A. Kondilis, The Relationship Between Motor Proficiency and Physical Activity in Children,American academy of pediatrics, PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 6 December 2006, pp. e1758-e1765 (doi:10.1542/peds.2006-0742).
  8. Graf C, Koch B, Kretschmann-Kandel E, Falkowski G, Christ H, Coburger S, Lehmacher W, Bjarnason-Wehrens B, Platen P, Tokarski W, Predel HG, Dordel SCorrelation between BMI, leisure habits and motor abilities in childhood (CHILT-Project) international obesity journal 2004 Jan;28(1):22-6.
  9. Franjoine, Mary Rose MS, PT, PCS; Gunther, Joan S. PhD, PT; Taylor, Mary Jean MA, PT, PCS, Pediatric Balance Scale: A Modified Version of the Berg Balance Scale for the School-Age Child with Mild to Moderate Motor Impairment, APTA pediatric physical therapy, Summer 2003 - Volume 15 - Issue 2 - pp 114-128.
  10. Judy Flegel and Thubi HA Kolobe , Predictive Validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance as Measured by the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency at School Age ,journal of American physical therapy association,August 2002 vol. 82,pgno.8 762-771.
  11. B. C. M. Smits-Engelsman, A. S. Niemeijer and G. P. van Galen, Fine motor deficiencies in children diagnosed as DCD based on poor grapho-motor ability, Volume, March 2001, Pages 161-182.
  12. Martha Bridge Denckla Development of Motor Co-ordination in Normal Children , developmental medicine and child neurology Volume 16, Issue 6, pages 729–741Benr Londeree Motor fitness of tmr vs emr and normal children, journal of medicine sports science, Winter 1974 - Volume 6 - Issue 4.