Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32970291›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2020

The Relationship Between Actual and Perceived Motor Competence in Children, Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

An De Meester, Lisa M Barnett, Ali Brian, Steven J Bowe, Judith Jiménez-Díaz, Femke Van Duyse, J Megan Irwin, David F Stodden, Eva D'Hondt, Matthieu Lenoir and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Effects of Feedback on Students' Motor Skill Learning in Physical Education: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

An De MeesterDepartment of Physical Education, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. demeeste@mailbox.sc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2270-719X
Lisa M BarnettInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9731-625X
Ali BrianDepartment of Physical Education, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6541-0938
Steven J BoweDeakin Biostatistics Unit, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Geelong, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3813-842X
Judith Jiménez-DíazSchool of Physical Education and Sports, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8663-7413
Femke Van DuyseDepartment of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
J Megan IrwinDepartment of Physical Education, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2366-9319
David F StoddenDepartment of Physical Education, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1988-1701
Eva D'HondtDepartment of Movement and Sport Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5646-2261
Matthieu LenoirDepartment of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3906-1137
Leen HaerensDepartment of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5715-9520

Funding

FWO FWO17-PDO-079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundActual and perceived motor competence are important correlates of various health-related behaviors. As such, numerous studies have examined the association between both constructs in children and adolescents.

objectivesThe first aim of this review and meta-analysis was to systematically examine, analyze and summarize the scientific evidence on the relationship between actual and perceived motor competence (and by extension more general physical self-perception) in children, adolescents and young adults with typical and atypical development. The second aim was to examine several a priori determined potential moderators (i.e., age, sex, and developmental status of study participants, as well as level of alignment between measurement instruments) of the relationship between actual motor competence and perceived motor competence/physical self-perception.

designThis systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and was registered with PROSPERO on August 21st 2017. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search of five electronic databases (i.e., MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, PsycINFO and EMBASE) with no date restrictions was conducted. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Eligibility criteria included (1) a study sample of youth aged 3-24 years, (2) an assessment of actual motor competence and perceived motor competence/physical self-perception, and (3) a report of the association between both, using a cross-sectional, longitudinal, or experimental design. Only original articles published in peer-reviewed journals with at least the title and abstract in English were considered. ANALYSES: Meta-analyses were conducted by type of actual motor competence (i.e., overall motor competence, locomotor, object control, stability/balance and sport-specific competence) through univariate and multivariable random-effects meta-regression and clustered random-effects meta-regression models.

resultsOf the 1643 articles screened, 87 were included for the qualitative review, while 69 remained for the final meta-analyses. All included studies had some risk of bias with only 15% meeting five of the six examined criteria. Significant (p < 0.001) pooled effects were found for overall motor competence (N = 54; r = 0.25; 95% CI [0.20, 0.29]), locomotor (N = 45; r = 0.19; 95% CI [0.13, 0.25]), object control (N = 50; r = 0.22; 95% CI [0.17, 0.27]), stability/balance (N = 8; r = 0.21; 95% CI [0.12, 0.30]), and sport-specific competence (N = 8; r = 0.46; 95% CI [0.28, 0.61]). None of the hypothesized moderators significantly influenced the relationship between actual motor competence and perceived motor competence/physical self-perception.

conclusionsThe strength of the association between actual motor competence and perceived motor competence/physical self-perception in youth is low to moderate, with current data demonstrating that the strength of association does not differ by age, sex, developmental status, or alignment between measurement instruments. However, this review highlights the lack of clarity on the relationship between actual motor competence and perceived motor competence/physical self-perception. Future research should address issues surrounding the design of studies and measurement of actual motor competence and perceived motor competence/physical self-perception as well as explore other potential confounding variables (i.e., product- versus process-oriented assessments, race, culture) that might affect the relationship between these two constructs.

Indexed as

Motor SkillsSelf ConceptAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolHumansSportsYoung Adult

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.