ArticlePloS one
Reference centiles based on year-to-year changes for a longitudinal evaluation of motor performance in children and adolescents.
Article in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim was to evaluate the longitudinal course of motor skills development in children with a view to improve the understanding of intra-individual variance. Previous publications have been based on cross-sectional data or analyzed longitudinal studies in a cross-sectional manner.
designLongitudinal. Year-to-year change.
methodsThe present study is based on motor function data collected in the LIFE Child study (Germany). The participants (6 to 17 years) completed parts of the motor tests according to the standard of the German Motor Performance Test 6-18 (DMT). For a total of 1653 participants, 4616 motor tests with an annual interval in the period 2011 to 2019 were included in the evaluation.
resultsWe were able to produce gender and age-specific change centiles for the test items standing long jump, jumping sideways, push-ups, stand and reach and balancing walking backwards. Each set of centiles revealed a range of variability in motor development in children and adolescents, with distinct progressive patterns in the different test items and different genders. The supplied tables offer an indication of expected year-to-year change for each test item depending on age and gender. Depending on the test item and the mean age, a deterioration in test results after a one-year interval was observed, despite cross-sectional centiles showing an upward trend.
conclusionWe present a user-friendly tool as a way to assess individual dynamic changes in motor development of children and adolescents. In combination with the well-known cross-sectional centiles as baseline, this can be helpful for the scientific evaluation of motor skills tests and can also be used in school settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.