International Journal of Physiology, Nutrition and Physical Education 2019; 4(2): 501-504

ISSN: 2456-0057
IJPNPE 2019; 4(2): 501-504
© 2019 IJPNPE Gross motor development among 7 – 9 years old
www.journalofsports.com
Received: 04-05-2019
children in Sabah
Accepted: 06-06-2019

Hasnol Noordin Hasnol Noordin, Pathmanathan K Suppiah, Abdul Muiz Nor Azmi,
Faculty of Psychology and Angelica Joanne Joummy, Phylicia Phoa Siew Ching and Noor Syaakira
Education, University Malaysia
Sabah, Malaysia Isahak
Pathmanathan K Suppiah Abstract
Faculty of Psychology and
The aim of the study was to examine the gross motor development of children between 7-9 years old in
Education, University Malaysia
Sabah, Malaysia
Sabah. A total of 240 children (134 boys, 104 girls) participated in this study from 2 different location;
rural and urban area. The children’s proficiency in motor skills was assessed with the Test of Gross
Abdul Muiz Nor Azmi Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2). The children performed two trials for each gross motor skill which
Faculty of Psychology and has been divided into two subtests, locomotor and object control. The results showed that there was no
Education, University Malaysia significant difference between boys and girls in locomotor skills (p>0.05) but there was a significant
Sabah, Malaysia difference in one of the object control skills (overarm throw) between boys and girls (p<0.05). There
were significant differences between rural and urban children in locomotor skills (run, gallop, and slide)
Angelica Joanne Joummy and object control (catch and underarm roll) (p<0.05). The current study demonstrated that children in
Faculty of Psychology and rural schools displayed better fundamental motor skills development compared to children in urban
Education, University Malaysia schools.
Sabah, Malaysia
Keywords: Gross motor development, fundamental movement skills, physical activity, TGMD-2
Phylicia Phoa Siew Ching
Faculty of Psychology and
Education, University Malaysia 1. Introduction
Sabah, Malaysia Advanced movements in daily activities are built upon the foundation of fundamental
movement skills (FMS) (Clark & Metcalfe, 2002) [3]. The acquisition of FMS during
Noor Syaakira Isahak childhood gives a sense of confidence and encourages participation in physical activities and
Faculty of Psychology and
Education, University Malaysia consequently promotes a healthy lifestyle into adulthood (Bakhtiar, 2014) [1]. FMS
Sabah, Malaysia encompasses locomotor skills (running, jumping etc); manipulative skills (catching, throwing
etc.) and stability (balancing, twisting etc).
The notion that FMS develops naturally is true but appropriate practice, feedback,
encouragement and learning environments helps the child achieve higher levels of motor
proficiency. A lack of learning experiences during childhood impedes the acquisition of FMS
(Branta, 2010) [2]. Gibson (2001) [8] proposed that the environment via its affordances provides
children with opportunities for outdoor play and independent mobility which directly
influences the acquisition of FMS. Large outdoor spaces provide an opportunity for children to
move and play; practicing different forms of locomotor, manipulative and stability skills. Play
directly influences the level of physical fitness and the confidence in socializing among
children (Osiñski, 2003).
Although there a multitude of family factors such as parents’ education, habits, social values,
knowledge about upbringing and nutritional awareness have an influence on the acquisition of
FMS (Venetsanou & Kambas, 2010) [20]; contributory factors in the wider environment of the
child need to be investigated. The different environments offered in the dichotomous division
of urban and rural areas and its impact on FMS acquisition is an area that needs to be studied.
Urban areas are characterized by a large concentration of people, better access to educational
and health facilities; modern cultural and sports facilities among others (McBrien, Stewart &
Correspondence Ezati, 2016) [12]. On the other hand, rural areas have large open outdoor areas, less organized
Abdul Muiz Nor Azmi
Faculty of Psychology and
leisure activities but more opportunities for physical activities.
Education, University Malaysia Leisure activities in urban areas do not focus entirely on physical activities thus differences
Sabah, Malaysia between rural and urban children in physical fitness have been observed. Studies on physical
~ 501 ~
International Journal of Physiology, Nutrition and Physical Education www.journalofsports.com

fitness among children have shown that rural children have a contrast urban areas with a denser population, residing in high
higher level of strength and endurance but lower levels of rise buildings and scarce open areas would inhibit the
speed and flexibility (Reyes, Tan & Malina, 2003) [17]. This development of FMS.
difference in the levels of physical fitness has been attributed
to the different affordances in rural and urban areas. Rural 2. Method
areas with its natural landform provide opportunities for 2.1 Participants
children to improve their balance, coordination and A total of 240 children (134 boys, 104 girls) aged between 7
endurance. Children’s playgrounds in urban areas are to 9 years old (Mage = 7.04 ± 1.08) from urban and rural
equipped with fixed equipment in a limited open space, schools in Sabah were randomly selected to participate in this
provides opportunities for the development of strength and study. The categorization of urban schools (n=3) and rural
coordination. schools (n = 3) was based on the Sabah State Education
There is a lack of studies focusing on how environmental Department’s categorization. Details of the participants are
factors within a country affect the acquisition of FMS presented in Table 1. All parents of the participants gave their
(Niemistö et al., 2019) [14]. The researches propose that rural written consent and the Ministry of Education (MOE) of
areas in Sabah that are less inhabited and large open spaces Malaysia (KPM.600-3/2/3-eras (3247)) approved the study.
provide more opportunities for play and FMS acquisition. In

Table 1: Characteristic of participants

Urban Schools Rural Schools
120 120
Number
(70 boys, 50 girls) (66 boys, 54 girls)
Age 7.90 ± .78 7.81 ± .67
Height 129.50 ± .08 129.80 ± .07
Weight 29.7 ± 2.70 30.2 ± 2.10
BMI 15.50 ± 1.67 15.80 ± 1.56

2.2 Instrumentation into two parts; locomotor and object control (OC). Locomotor
The Test Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2) (Ulrich, skills assessed were run, gallop, hop, leap, horizontal jump,
2000) [19] was used in this study. The aim of this test was to skip, and slide; and OC skills assessed were two-hand strike,
measure the gross motor capabilities that develop in children. stationary bounce, catch, kick, overhand throw, and
There are two different subtests that involved in TGMD, underhand roll. A sequence of tests was counterbalanced and
which are locomotor and object control (OC). The locomotor was carried out as presented in the TGMD-2 Examiner’s
subtests consisted of six skills tests (run, gallop, hop, leap, Manual. All performances were recorded and assessed by two
jump, and slide) and OC subtests consisted of six skills tests raters and the inter-rater reliability coefficient was .96.
(dribble, strike, catch, kick, throw, and roll). The sum of these subtests scores were used to determine the
standard score and percentile ranks based on participant’s age
2.3 Procedure and gender as specified in TGMD-2 Examiner’s Manual
The gross motor skills of the participants were assessed using (Ulrich, 2000) [19]. Descriptive rating of each participant is
the Test for Gross Motor Development 2 (TGMD-2) (Ulrich, reported as in Table 2.
2000) [19]. The batteries of tests consist of 13 tests subdivided

Table 2: Descriptive ratings for subtest standard scores and gross motor quotient
Descriptive ratings Subtest standard scores Gross motor quotient
Very superior 17-20 >130
Superior 15-16 121-130
Above average 13-14 111-120
Average 8-12 90-110
Below average 6-7 80-89
Poor 4-5 70-79
Very poor 1-3 <70

2.4 Data analysis 3. Results

The descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA was used to Table 3 shows the results of one-way ANOVA between boys
analyze the data. Two separate genders (boy, girl) x 2 areas and girls on locomotor and OC. There was a significant
(urban, rural) analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were difference between boys and girls in the overarm throw but
conducted on the locomotor and OC subtest standard scores to there were significant differences between boys and girls in
examine possible gender differences, area differences and the all the other subtests.
interaction of Gender x Area on both subtests. The significant
level was set as p<0.05.

~ 502 ~
International Journal of Physiology, Nutrition and Physical Education www.journalofsports.com

Table 3: Comparison between urban and rural schools on the locomotor and OC
Boys Girls P
Run 5.97 ± .76 6.03 ± .74 .101
Gallop 5.27 ± .75 5.23 ± .86 .693
Hop 5.87 ± .77 5.92 ± .82 .302
Leap 5.32 ± .59 5.42 ± .73 .131
Horizontal jump 5.91 ± .75 6.02 ± .82 .249
Slide 5.74 ± .59 5.75 ± .63 .853
Strike ball 5.88 ± .50 5.82 ± .56 .375
Dribble 5.63 ± .91 5.44 ± .94 .108
Catch 5.32 ± .43 5.24 ± .47 .201
Kick 5.86 ± .67 5.68 ± .66 .089
Overarm throw 5.93 ± .74 5.21 ± .86 .022*
Underarm roll 6.01 ± .81 5.91 ±.81 .444
Mean ± SD, p<.05*

Table 4 shows the result of one-way ANOVA between urban leap and high jump between rural and urban schools. There
and rural schools on locomotor and OC. There were were significant differences on the catch and underarm roll
significant differences of locomotor skills on the run, gallop but there were no significant differences on the rest of OC
and slide, but there were no significant differences on the hop, between rural and urban schools.

Table 4: Comparison between urban and rural schools on the locomotor and OC
Urban schools Rural schools p
Run 5.67 ± .71 6.23 ± .68 .002*
Gallop 4.88 ± .49 5.63 ± .88 .003*
Hop 5.81 ± .73 5.84 ± .67 .685
Leap 5.71 ± .61 5.69 ± .48 .471
High jump 6.42 ± .62 6.50 ± .58 .215
Slide 5.51 ± .50 5.98 ± .61 .012*
Strike the ball 5.83 ± .37 5.87 ± .65 .626
Dribble 5.55 ± .87 5.60 ± .97 .209
Catch 4.81 ± .40 5.92 ± .47 .021*
Kick 5.75 ± .61 5.76 ± .73 .848
Overarm throw 5.47 ± .76 5.67 ± .83 .053
Underarm roll 5.23 ± .81 6.12 ± .81 .003*
Mean ± SD, p<.05*

Table 5: Descriptive ratings of Gross Motor Quotient

GMQ Urban schools Rural schools
Very superior - 2
Superior 5 19
Above average 45 51
Average 49 38
Below average 20 10
Poor 1 -
Very poor - -
Total 120 120

4. Discussion Seefeldt & Haubenstricker, 1982 [18].

The aim of the study was to investigate if there were The rural children performed significantly better in 3 out of 6
differences between children in rural areas and children in of the locomotor skills and 2 out of the 6 OC skills. The
urban areas in the acquisition of gross motor skills. It was significant differences were evident in the run, gallop and
hypothesized that children in rural areas would have a higher slide (locomotor); and catch and underarm roll (OC). A
level of FMS due to the proximity of outdoor areas that majority of the children (60%) from the rural areas were
provide a conducive environment in developing FMS. above average under GMQ classification with 2 children in
Gender based differences among the participants was only the “very superior” category. Contrastingly 59.7% of the
evident in the overarm throw with the boys performing better children in the urban areas were in the average and below
than the girls. This could be due to the nature of games played categories.
by the boys. There is a popular game among boys in Sabah The availability of outdoor playing areas for the children in
that requires the overarm throw. Participants of the game, rural areas could be the cause of this finding. Children from
which is similar to dodgeball; attempt to hit other players rural areas tend to involve themselves more in nature related
using a tennis ball. The overarm throw is the most popular activities such as climbing (Muslim, Farhana, Hosaka,
technique used to meet the games objective. The absence of Numata & Yahya, 2017) [13]. Urban children tend to be
significant differences in locomotor skills across genders has involved more in nonphysical leisure activities due to safety
previously been reported by Goodway, Robinson & Crowe, concerns and parental unavailability. Parents in urban areas;
2010 [9]; Goodway, Crowe & Ward, 2003 [10]; Li, 2009 [11]; especially from the lower socio economic status are known to

~ 503 ~
International Journal of Physiology, Nutrition and Physical Education www.journalofsports.com

hold two more jobs in order to meet their household expenses, Contemporary Journal of African Studies. 2016; 4(1):29-
thus being unable to monitor their children during playtime 56.
outdoors. 13. Muslim M, Farhana H, Hosaka T, Numata S, Yahya NA.
The overall performance of the participants in the TGMD 2 Nature-related experience during childhood in urban and
showed a worrisome trend. Almost half the participants were rural areas: the case of Peninsular Malaysians. Urban
categorized as average and below in the GMQ. Studies Studies Research, 2017.
(Okely, Booth & Chey, 2004; Cliff et al., 2012) [16, 4] have 14. Niemistö D, Barnett LM, Cantell M, Finni T, Korhonen
shown that obese children have lower levels of FMS. Poor E, Sääkslahti A. Socioecological correlates of perceived
FMS acquisition would discourage the children in motor competence in 5‐to 7‐year‐old Finnish
participating in physical activities and lead lifestyle health children. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in
problems in their adult years. It is important for those sports. 2019; 29(5):753-765.
responsible to acknowledge the findings and intervene in the 15. Osiński W. Antropomotoryka, wyd. II rozszerzone,
preschool years; as the acquisition of FMS is highest between AWF, Poznań, 2003, 320-330.
the ages of 5 and 7 (Gallahu, Ozmun & Goodway, 2019) [6]. 16. Okely AD, Booth ML, Chey T. Relationships between
Parents too must take up the responsibility of ensuring that body composition and fundamental movement skills
their children participate in physical activities daily; and with among children and adolescents. Research quarterly for
the current practice of providing children mobile devices as a exercise and sport. 2004; 75(3):238-247.
form of entertainment should be avoided. 17. Peña Reyes ME, Tan SK, Malina RM. Urban–rural
contrasts in the physical fitness of school children in
5. Acknowledgement Oaxaca, Mexico. American Journal of Human Biology:
Fund for this project was provided by Universiti Malaysia The Official Journal of the Human Biology
Sabah through a research grant, GPP0027-2018. Special Association, 2003; 15(6):800-813.
thanks to District Education Office of Kota Kinabalu and 18. Seefeldt V, Haubenstricker J. Patterns, phases, or stages:
Tambunan, Sabah for allowing us to conduct the research in An analytical model for the study of developmental
their schools. movement. The development of movement control and
coordination, 1982; 309, 318.
6. References 19. Ulrich DA. Test of gross motor development 2nd
1. Bakhtiar S. Fundamental motor skill among 6-year-old edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, 2000.
children in Padang, West Sumatera, Indonesia. Asian 20. Venetsanou F, Kambas A. Environmental factors
Social Science. 2014; 10(5):155-158. affecting preschoolers’ motor development. Early
2. Branta CF. Sport specialization: Developmental and childhood education journal. 2010; 37(4):319-327.
learning issues. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance. 2010; 81(8):19-28.
3. Clark JE, Metcalfe JS. The mountain of motor
development: A metaphor. Motor development: Research
and reviews. 2002; 2(163-190):183-202.
4. Cliff DP, Okely AD, Morgan PJ, Jones RA, Steele JR,
Baur LA. Proficiency deficiency: mastery of fundamental
movement skills and skill components in overweight and
obese children. Obesity. 2012; 20(5):1024-1033.
5. Ezati A. The Study of Effective Factor in Sustainable
Urban Renewal Process (Case Study, IRAN; Mashhad
city), 2015.
6. Gallahue DL, Ozmun JC, Goodway J. Understanding
Motor Development: Infants, Children, Adolescents,
Adults. (7th Ed.) New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 2019.
7. Gibson JJ. The Ecological Approach to Visual
Perception. Lawrence Erblbaum Associates. Inc.,
Hillsdale, 1986.
8. Gibson EJ. Perceiving the affordances: A portrait of two
psychologists. Psychology Press, 2001.
9. Goodway JD, Robinson LE, Crowe H. Gender
differences in fundamental motor skill development in
disadvantaged preschoolers from two geographical
regions. Research quarterly for exercise and sport.
2010; 81(1):17-24.
10. Goodway JD, Crowe H, Ward P. Effect of motor skill
instruction on fundamental motor skill development.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. 2003; 20(3):298-
314.
11. Li L. Children Gross Motor Development from Ages 3 to
10 in Shandong. Journal of Shandong Institute of
Physical Education and Sports. 2009; 25(4):47-50.
12. McBrien JL, Stewart J, Ezati BA. Positive youth
development in war-affected children in Uganda.
~ 504 ~