Costello & Warne, Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1724065

SPORT | RESEARCH ARTICLE

A four-week fundamental motor skill intervention
improves motor skills in eight to 10-year-old Irish
primary school children
Received: 22 August 2019 Keith Costello1* and Joe Warne1,2
Accepted: 27 January 2020
Abstract: Aim: To determine if a four-week fundamental motor skills intervention
*Corresponding author: Keith
Costello, CBS Primary School, improves fundamental motor skills in Irish school children. Methods: 100 Primary
Clounalour, Tralee, Co. Kerry, Ireland
E-mail: kcostello@cbsprimarytralee.
School boys (n = 58) and girls (n = 42) participated in this study (Age 9 ± 1 years,
com equally divided into a control and intervention group. Proficiency was assessed
Reviewing editor: qualitatively using the Fundamental Motor Skills Quotient (FMSQ) pre and post
Vassil Girginov, Life Sciences, Brunel
University, UK
intervention, and between gender. Results: There was no change in the control
group over time (p = 0.54; Mean change = 0.06 [−0.14 to 0.26]; Cohen’s d = 0.01
Additional information is available at
the end of the article [Trivial]). In the intervention group, both the male (p ≤ 0.001; Mean diff = 0.893 [7.79
to 10.08]; Cohen’s d = 2.24 [V. Large]), and female group (p ≤ 0.001; Mean diff =
11.85 [10.45 to 13.25]; Cohen’s d = 3.54 [V. Large]) significantly improved funda-
mental motor skills scores. A four-week intervention is effective at improving FMSQ.

Subjects: Sports and Leisure; Social Sciences; Education

Keywords: physical literacy; movement; skill development; youth; movement screening

ABOUT THE AUTHORS PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Keith Costello Keith has worked as a Primary An ongoing health concern is the prevalence of
School Teacher for 19 years. He also lectures in overweight and obese children. While fast food
the area of Physical Education with Hibernia and poor nutrition play a role in this, another
College. Keith has a particular interest in the important contributor is that children today are
area of Children’s Fundamental Movement Skills less active than they have been in the past.
and hopes to do further research in this area in A potential reason for this lack of activity is
the future. He is also certified strength and because children lack fundamental motor skills.
conditioning coach and holds a master’s degree However, our research has shown that a four-
in performance coaching. He works with athletes week fundamental motor skill intervention of just
from all different sports. two 30-minute lessons a week can significantly
Joe Warne Joe is an elite athlete, coach and improve 8- to 10-year-old male and female pro-
scientist. He specialises in data analytics, bio- ficiency of the Fundamental Motor Skills. Teachers
mechanics and physiology. His focus is very can use the methods in the study to teach these
much on high performance, where he has coa- focused fundamental motor skills classes, using
ched and currently coaches several international the different game discussed to reinforce the
athletes. Academically, Joe has numerous pub- skills. The intervention is feasible within the con-
lications in the area of running biomechanics fines of a limited school PE curriculum so that
and physiology. He is recognised as one of the focused fundamental motor skills literacy
world’s leading experts in the transition of becomes a key part of the child’s education in the
minimalist footwear with respect to perfor- future.
mance and injury as a result of his PHD
research.

© 2020 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 1 of 16
Costello & Warne, Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1724065

1. Introduction
Fundamental motor skills are important in the long-term development of children physically,
socially and cognitively (Lloyd, Saunders, Bremer, & Tremblay, 2014). Barnett, Van Beurden,
Morgan, Brooks, and Beard (2008) define The Fundamental Movement Skills as “basic learnt
movement patterns that do not occur naturally and are suggested to be foundational for more
complex physical and sporting activities”. They are generally broken into three categories:
Locomotor skills—such as walking, running, hopping, skipping, jumping, dodging, and side step-
ping, stability skills—such as Balancing and landing and Manipulative skills—such as catching,
throwing, kicking, the underarm roll, and striking (Hands & McIntyre, 2015). These fundamental
skills have been suggested to influence long-term adherence to physical activity (Barnett et al.,
2008; Lloyd et al., 2014) and may also be related to obesity (Okely, Booth & Chey, 2004; Lubans,
Morgan, Cliff, Barnett, & Okely, 2010).

Within Ireland, an ongoing health concern is the prevalence of overweight and obese children;
Whelton et al. (2007) found that almost one in four Irish boys (23%) between the ages of 4 and 16
and just over one in four Irish girls (28%) aged between 4 and 16 were either overweight or obese.
While fast food and poor nutrition may play a role in obesity (Rosenheck, 2008), another important
contributor is that children today are less active than they have been in the past (Fisher et al.,
2005). Woods, Moyna, and Quinlan (2010) found that just 19% of the primary and 12% of the post-
primary school children in Ireland met the minimum physical activity recommendations of at least
60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity daily. A potential reason for this lack of
activity is because children lack fundamental motor skills (Lubans et al., 2010). Bremer and Cairney
(2018) believe a number of factors such as sedentary lifestyles, inactivity, weight problems/obesity
and problems in learning amongst some children are factors that explain their poor fundamental
motor skills. Lubans et al. (2010) maintain that the mastery of fundamental motor skills contri-
butes not just to a child’s physical development but also to their cognitive and social development
as well as providing the foundation for an active lifestyle. Balyi and Hamilton (2004) believe that if
the fundamental motor skills are not mastered between the ages of eight and 11 for boys and nine
to 12 for girls the ability of the young child to reach their full potential may be compromised.
Therefore, if we can teach fundamental motor skills to young children we not only give them the
confidence and skills to take part in physical activity and sport (Hume et al., 2008), but we may
also help in combating obesity and the related risk of disease in later life (Okely et al., 2004).

The Department of Education and Skills recommend that 60 minutes a week is allocated to
Physical Education in Irish Primary schools, usually consisting of two 30-minute sessions (Woods
et al., 2010). However, just 46 minutes was found to be the average time spent in Physical
Education and in fact, only 35% of the children are getting the required 60 minutes a week as
recommended (Woods et al., 2010). Curriculum online.ie, (1999) lists six different Physical
Education strands on its website: Athletics, Dance, Gymnastics, Games, Outdoor, and Adventure
Activities and Aquatics. While the curriculum lists the skills, the child should be “enabled to learn”
for each of the strands, it does not mention expected motor skill development as the child
progresses from Junior Infants to sixth class. Also, Woods et al. (2010) found that children are
not being exposed enough to each of the six curriculum strands. They noted that Basketball was
the most common activity undertaken by children (68%), followed by Gaelic football (64%), soccer
(61%), rounders (55%), and swimming (50%). They also noted that most of these activities are
from the games strand of the Primary School Physical Education Curriculum and that 89% of the
children reported to not having participated in any outdoor and adventure activities, 70% didn’t
participate in gymnastics, 57% had no participation in dance, 50% didn’t participate in aquatics
and 42% had no exposure to athletics during their physical education class in the past year.
Therefore, not only are Irish Primary School Children not getting enough exposure to Physical
Education weekly, they are not being exposed enough to each of the different Curriculum strands.
The importance of exposure to other stands such as gymnastics and dance in the Physical
Education curriculum for promoting Fundamental Motor Skills has been well highlighted (Ross &

Page 2 of 16
Costello & Warne, Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1724065

Butterfield, 1989; Rudd et al., 2017). This lack of exposure to other strands may help explain the
poor current fundamental motor skill standards.

Several studies have examined the Fundamental Motor Skills of Children. For example, Booth
et al. (1999) assessed the performance of six Fundamental Motor Skills amongst Australian
children and adolescents (Years 4–10), the findings indicated the mastery or near mastery of
these fundamental motor skills were low particularly amongst Year 4 children (8 and 9-years old).
The authors found that only 24% of the boys and girls showed mastery in Running, 20% in the
vertical jump and just 18% in the Overhand Throw (Booth et al., 1999). In addition, a U.S. study by
Erwin and Castelli (2008) assessed 180 childres aged 8- to 12-year-old children on their compe-
tency in a number of basketball (Locomotor/Manipulative skills), gymnastic (stability skills) and
throwing skills (Manipulative skills). The results showed that just 47% of the children were making
satisfactory progress toward motor competency. To date, very limited research has been con-
ducted in Irish Primary School Children. One study that we are aware of is that of O’Brien, Belton,
and Issartel (2016) where nine Fundamental Motor Skills were assessed amongst 12 to 13-year-old
Irish children during Physical Education classes; Alarmingly only 11% of the children assessed
displayed mastery of near mastery of these basic movement patterns (O’Brien et al., 2016). As far
as we are aware no study has been done dealing specifically with the Fundamental Motor Skills of
eight to 10-year-old Irish Primary School Children, and it is during these years that children are
developmentally ready to learn fundamental motor skills that will give them the best chance of
engaging in lifelong, health enhancing physical activity (Balyi, Way & Higgs, 2013). A secondary
concern is that females have been found to consistently underperform in fundamental motor skills,
when compared to males (Booth et al., 1999; Erwin & Castelli, 2008; O’Brien et al., 2016; Spessato,
Gabbard, Valentini, & Rudisill, 2013). Boys generally display superior scores for object control and
locomotor skills (Spessato et al., 2013). Researchers have tried to explain the differences between
boys and girls, especially in the area of throwing. Some researchers suggest that socio-cultural and
environmental factors explain why boys are generally better than girls at object-control skills (as
boys generally spend more time participating in different gross motor activities and ball games
that utilise and develop these skills) (Pate, Pfeiffer, Trost, Ziegler, & Dowda, 2004). This proposed
explanation is supported by Hyde (2005), who reviewed the comprehensive meta-analyses evi-
dence relating to sex differences and reported that males and females are alike on most psycho-
logical variables at all ages (Hyde, 2005)—implying that differences in motor abilities in children
are influenced by the learning environment. On the other hand and given that sex differences
occur at a very young age, other researchers maintain that sex differences, especially in throwing,
cannot simply be attributed differential experiences, and that innate psychological capacities
relating to spatial targeting may influence performance in girls and boys (Watson, 2001).
Consequently, low FMS proficiency levels and sex-differences in performance levels highlight the
need for further investigation into FMS proficiency in young people (especially girls). This under-
performance has implications for female health and physical activity in the future (Barnett et al.,
2008; Farmer, Belton, & O’Brien, 2017).

Whilst there is a need for FMS development through all juvenile age groups we are at a potential
crisis point for children of this age (8–10 years old), to be exposed to opportunities to develop
Fundamental Motor Skills (Woods et al., 2010) and hence the focus on this age group in the
present study. Timetabled Physical Education (PE) lessons a week in week out of the school year in
a suitable facility (hall/playground) are an ideal opportunity to improve these skills. A dedicated
intervention may be useful in schools to develop Fundamental Motor skills within the current Irish
PE infrastructure, where limited opportunity for physical activity exists. It is not intended that the
development of Fundamental Motor Skills replaces the Physical Education (PE) lesson. Rather, it is
intended that this skill development is integrated into the PE lesson in line with the overall school
plan. In this way, the teacher focuses a lens on skill development within a lesson that is based on
one of the strands of the PE curriculum. It is suggested that the teacher introduces a maximum of
two teaching points per skill during each PE lesson. For example, van Beurden et al. (2003) carried
out a study to see if over a 1000 Australian Primary School Children could be taught fundamental

Page 3 of 16
Costello & Warne, Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1724065

motor skills through Primary School PE lessons and concluded that yes, by modifying existing PE
lessons, significant improvements in fundamental motor skills mastery can be gained. Likewise,
a systematic review and meta-analysis by Morgan et al. (2013) and Logan, Robinson, Wilson, and
Lucas (2012), which guided decisions made in our study, indicate that motor skill interventions are
effective. Therefore, there is evidence that the short window of opportunity afforded during PE
schedules can be used to effectively master fundamental motor skills, and this needs to be
examined in an Irish population.

Thus, the aim of the present study was to determine if a four-week-instructed fundamental
motor skills intervention, applied in two 30-minute sessions, is effective in improving fundamental
motor skills in Irish school male and female children between eight and 10 years of age, when
compared to a control group. A four-week intervention was used as schools often focus on a topic
each month (four weeks) and therefore we felt this was an useable approach for primary schools”.
According to the Australian Fundamental Motor Skills Manual, (1996), it takes between 240 and
600 minutes of instruction time to become proficient in one FMS and providing 1 hr a week will
ensure sufficient learning experience. We wanted to challenge this time-frame and see if just two
well-planned and structured 30-minute lessons a week over four-weeks could improve a child’s
proficiency in the FMS. We hypothesize that the intervention group will significantly improve
fundamental motor skills scores as a result of the intervention, when compared to the control
group. Second, we hypothesize that females will demonstrate lower fundamental motor skill
scores when compared to males throughout testing.

1.1. Materials and methods

1.1.1. Participants
A total of 100 third- and fourth-class Primary School boys (n = 58, Age 8.6 ± 0.7) and girls (n = 42,
Age 8.8 ± 0.7) participated in the study. All children lived in an urban or suburban setting. To be
included in the study, the children had to be healthy; any child suffering from neurological or
musculoskeletal condition was excluded (n = 4). Parents and Guardians were provided with
information regarding the testing and written informed consent was obtained from all prior to
any testing taking place. The primary investigator held both a Bachelor of Education Degree (BEd)
as well as a Master’s in Performance Science Degree (MSc) and had many years’ experience of
working with children and testing athletes. The intervention was delivered by the primary inves-
tigator at all times. The primary investigator was vetted by An Garda Síochana. Procedures and
ethics were approved by the college and Primary School involved in the study.

1.1.2. Experimental design

Following an explanation of the testing procedures, the 100 children were divided per class
grouping into a control group (n = 49) which consisted of one third class (n = 25), one fourth
class (n = 24) and an intervention group (n = 51), which consisted of the other third class (n = 26)
and the other fourth class (n = 25). Each child was assessed using the Fundamental Motor Skills
Quotient (FMSQ) criteria which have been shown to be a valid measure of motor competence in
young children (Hands & McIntyre, 2015). Unlike more popular methods of FMS assessment such
as the TGMD-2 which assesses 12 skills in total, the FMSQ tests just four. Therefore, testing of larger
groups is a far quicker process. It’s simple scoring system means children’s scores can be tallied in
real-time observation, making it a practical resource.

To examine the inter-rater reliability of the scoring method, both authors independently
assessed 10 children on a separate occasion using the same methods as described below and
without knowledge of the other author’s scores. These separate scores were then compared for
analysis.

The children were demonstrated the skills once before completing them individually. Following
testing the control group partook in their normal Physical Education classes which consisted of

Page 4 of 16
Costello & Warne, Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1724065

ball-handling skills and station teaching from the “Games” strand of the curriculum, two 30-
minute classes a week for four weeks while the Intervention group partook in a four-week move-
ment literacy Intervention. Both groups were then re-tested for FMSQ. Re-testing took place in the
same testing order, in the same setting, and at the same time of day. All testing took place in
controlled conditions in an indoor sports hall and at the same time of day. The testing area was set
up identically for both the pre- and post-tests. Participants wore the same footwear and their
school tracksuit on both testing days.

1.1.3. Instruments and procedures

1.1.3.1. Fundamental motor skills quotient (FMSQ) testing. The indoor sports hall used for testing
measured 26 metres by 16 metres and was floored using a standard indoor vinyl finish. Due to
the simple scoring system used by the FMSQ, all scoring was undertaken by the primary
investigator as the children performed each skill. The procedure for each of the tests was as
follows and the scoring criteria are also presented in Table 1 (Hands & McIntyre, 2015).

(1) Single leg Hop: Two Parallel lines using red duct tape were aligned five metres apart. The
child was instructed to stand on the first red line and to hop using only their right leg to
the second red line a distance of five metres. Upon reaching the second red line, the child
was asked to turn around and to single leg hop back a further five metres to the first line
again only using their right leg. The same procedure was repeated by the child using their
left leg. The tester observed the child’s upper body while hopping from the first line to
the second line each time and the child’s lower body while hopping back from the second
line to the first line each time.

Table 1. Skills criteria for each fundamental motor skill

Hop (right and left leg). 11 criteria Overarm throw. 7 criteria
(1) The support leg bends on landing and straightens (1) The child stands side on in the direction of the
again when pushing off (R and L). throw.
(2) The child takes off and lands on the forefoot (R (2) The throwing arm moves in an arc that is down-
and L). ward and backward.
(3) The swing leg moves rhythmically with the sup- (3) The child steps forward with the opposite foot to
port leg (R and L). the throwing arm.
(4) The child can hop on both legs. (4) Hips rotate first, followed by the shoulders.
(5) The head and trunk are stable and the child’s (5) The elbow is bent as the throwing arm moves
eyes are looking ahead (R and L) behind the head.
(6) The arms are bent and they move to assist leg (6) The forearm and hand lag behind the upper
action (R and L). body.
(7) The throwing arm follows through across the
body.

Broad jump. 7 criteria Sprint run. 6 criteria

(1) The ankles, knees, and hip bend. (1) Feet land along a narrow path.
(2) The child is looking forward. (2) Foot close to the buttocks and high knee lift.
(3) The arms swing behind the body. (3) The head and trunk are stable.
(4) The legs straighten. (4) The child is looking ahead.
(5) Both of the child’s feet leave the ground at the (5) The elbows are bent (approx. 90 degrees).
same time. (6) Arm drive (forward and backwards vigorously).
(6) The arms swing forward and upward.
(7) Both feet touch the ground at the same time on
landing.

R, right; L, Left (Hands & McIntyre, 2015).

Note: A point is given for each criteria that are deemed present.

Page 5 of 16
Costello & Warne, Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1724065

(2) Standing Broad Jump: The child was instructed to stand on the first red line with their feet
parallel, shoulder width apart, and facing the second red line. They were then instructed,
when ready, to jump as far forward as they could. Upon landing the child was asked to
return once more to the first red line and in their own time complete a second standing
broad jump. The tester observed the child’s upper body movements during the first jump
and their lower body movements during the second jump.

(3) Overarm Throw: The child was instructed to stand on the first red line and to face the second
red line. The child was handed a tennis ball. He/she was instructed when ready to throw the
ball using an overarm throw as far as they could. The child was handed a second ball and
repeated the same procedure. The tester observed the child’s upper body movements during
the first throw and their lower body movements during the second throw.

(4) Sprint Run: A third red line was aligned parallel using red duct tape 20 metres from the first
line. The child was instructed to stand on the first red line and face the third red line. When
ready they were instructed to run as fast as they could over 20 metres. On reaching the third
red line they were instructed to turn around and to run back another 20 metres to the first
red line as fast as they could. The tester observed the child’s upper body movements while
sprinting from the first red line to the third and the child’s lower body movements while
sprinting back again from the third red line to the first.

Each child was marked on their proficiency in completing each movement using a simple scoring
system based on the FMSQ criteria. As recommended by Hands and McIntyre (2015) each criterion
demonstrated successfully by the child received a score of one and for each criterion not success-
fully displayed by the child, he/she received a score of zero. The observation record for the “run”
comprised of six criteria, the “overarm throw” seven criteria, the standing “broad jump” eight
criteria, and the single leg “hop” 11 criteria. The skills criteria for each of the fundamental motor
skills assessed can be found in Table 1. The maximum score a child can receive is 32 when the sum
of all four skills is totalled (Hands & McIntyre, 2015). Prior to testing, 100 sheets were photocopied
(one for each child) with each of the criteria on it and each child’s score was marked as they were
observed completing each of the fundamental motor skills.

After pre-tests, the intervention group (n = 51) began a four-week fundamental motor skills
intervention. The intervention group was split into two smaller groups, Group one (n = 27) and
Group two (n = 24), based on class allocations. Sixty minutes a week is currently the recom-
mended time donated to PE in the Irish Primary School Curriculum (Woods et al., 2010).
Therefore, for the next four weeks both Group one and two were taken for two 30-minute
fundamental motor skills lessons each a week. Each lesson focused on a specific fundamental
motor skill and began with a 5-minute dynamic warm-up (Figure 1). A 5-minute revision of
skills learned from previous lessons followed this. This was followed by 10 minutes of teaching
the specific Fundamental Motor Skill being taught that week, namely the criteria mentioned in
Table 1. Primary Physical Education lists a number of Games from the “Move Well, Move Often”
Physical Literacy Program. Each lesson finished with 10 minutes of these Games. These games
are designed to improve children’s fundamental motor skills. The four-week intervention is
detailed in Table 2.

2. Data management
Each pupils' Age, Gender, and individual score for their single leg hop, standing broad jump,
overarm throw, and Sprint Run was entered in Microsoft Excel. A total overall score was calculated
for each pupil. Both groups' mean and standard deviation were calculated for each individual
Fundamental Movement skill as well as each group's total score.

Page 6 of 16
Costello & Warne, Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1724065

Figure 1. A floor plan of the

gymnasium layout for testing. Cone

Duct tape Legend

Box of Tennis Balls

5m

5m

20m

3. Data analysis
A three-way mixed ANOVA (between, between, within-subject factors) was conducted to examine
differences in time (pre vs. post-test), group (intervention vs. control), and gender (male vs.
female). Three way-interactions were examined using two-way mixed ANOVAs and simple main
effects (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences data analysis software V22.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago,
Illinois, USA). Statistical significance was accepted at α ≤ 0.05. The smallest standardised change
that is considered meaningful was assumed to be an effect size of 0.20 for Cohen’s d. (Cohen,
1988). The effect was also expressed as 95% confidence limits (mean change [lower to upper
confidence interval]). Where tests failed Mauchly’s test of Sphericity, a Huynh-Feldt correction was
applied for main effects.

Page 7 of 16
Costello & Warne, Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1724065

Figure 2. A line graph identify-

ing changes in fundamental
motor skills (FMS) scores in
males and females in the two
groups (control—–CON, inter-
vention—INT) over the four-
week intervention period (pre,
post). Error bars are SD.

Note: *Sig. difference (p ≤ 0.05)

between groups (INT group
only); Ϫ = sig. change (p ≤ 0.05)
between time points for
specific group.

Inter-tester reliability was assessed utilising the two-way mixed interclass correlation coefficient
(+95% confidence interval [CI]) and typical error (TE), as well as a paired t-test to examine
systematic error between raters.

4. Results
There was no participant dropout during the research. Analysis identified no significant differences
between the intervention and control group at pre-test for fundamental motor skills scores (p = 0.50).
Descriptive statistics for the total fundamental motor skills tests can be observed in Table 3, and
individual test scores are presented in Table 4.

There was a significant, but small three-way interaction (time*group*gender) (p = 0.003) for
fundamental motor skills scores. Therefore, we first examined overall effects of the intervention
comparing the intervention and control group, and then proceeded to examine any differences in
gender specific to each group.

There was a statistically significant interaction between the groups (Intervention & Control) and
time (Pre and Post) on fundamental motor skills scores (p ≤ 0.001). Results of the interaction can
be observed in Figure 2. Mean (±SD) data for total scores for each group are presented in Table 3.

We examined this interaction using simple main effects. When examining differences between
groups, there was no significant difference in fundamental motor skills scores at the pre-test (p =
0.50; Mean diff = 0.64 [−1.23 to 2.51]; Cohen’s d = 0.14 [Trivial]); however, a significantly higher
fundamental motor skills score was identified at the post-test in the intervention group when
compared to the control (p ≤ 0.001; Mean diff = 10.65 [9.06 to 12.25]; Cohen’s d = 2.68 [V. Large]).

When examining changes over time, the intervention group significantly improved fundamental motor
skills scores (p ≤ 0.001; Mean change = 10.08 [9.13 to 11.02]; Cohen’s d = 2.63 [V. Large]). However, the
control group did not change fundamental motor skills scores (p = 0.54; Mean change = 0.06 [−0.14 to
0.26]; Cohen’s d = 0.01 [Trivial]).

When examining the effect of gender throughout the study, we examined both the control and
intervention group separately. For the control group, we observed no interaction effect between time
and gender (p = 0.49), as well as no main effects for time (p = 0.49), or gender (p = 0.13). However, in
the intervention group, a significant interaction between time and gender was observed (p = 0.002).
Simple main effects identified a significantly higher fundamental motor skills score in males compared

Page 8 of 16
 Table 2. Details of the four-week fundamental motor skills intervention
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1724065

Dynamic warm-up (5 minutes) Dynamic Warm-up (5 minutes) Dynamic Warm-up (5 minutes) Dynamic Warm-up (5 minutes)
Revision of Learned Skills (5 minutes) Revision of Learned Skills (5 minutes) Revision of Learned Skills (5 minutes)
Costello & Warne, Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065

Skills on how to perform a Single Leg Hop (10 Skills on how to perform a Standing Broad Skills on how to perform an Overarm Throw Skills on how to perform a Sprint Run (10
minutes) Jump (10 minutes) (10 minutes) minutes)
The children proceeded when instructed to The children were lined up side by side at one Each child was given a tennis ball and then The children were lined up side by side at one
single leg hop on their right foot the length of end of the hall and faced the opposite end. lined up side by side at one end of the hall, of the hall and faced the opposite end. The
the hall, focusing on a different teaching The standing Broad Jump was taught as facing the opposite end. The skill was taught children then proceeded, when instructed, to
point every two lengths of the hall. Teaching several steps that everybody completed step by step as follows: (1) Stand side on. (2) sprint the length of the hall, focusing on
points: (1) Taking off and landing on the together one step at a time. Steps: (1) Eyes Hold the tennis ball in the dominant hand. a different teaching point every two lengths
same foot. Ensuring to push from the ball of focused forward. Feet parallel and shoulder Nondominant hand and shoulder point of the hall: The teaching points included (1)
the foot on take-off. (2) Moving the support width apart. (2) Squat deeply onto the heels towards a target. (3) Eyes focused on the Head stable, eyes looking straight ahead. (2)
leg rhythmically with the jumping leg. (3) while bringing the arms back. (3) Explode target throughout the throw. (4) The Elbows bent at 90 degrees. (3) The arms
Slightly bending the support leg on landing forward, bringing the arms forwards and up. throwing arm is brought back behind the drive forwards and backward vigorously
and straightening on take-off. (4) Bending Hips, knees, and ankles extend body, moving in an arc that is downwards (drive comes from the shoulders) in
the arms at the elbow and swinging them simultaneously. The toes are last part of the and backwards. (5) Step towards the target opposition to the legs while remaining close
back and forth together assisting the leg body to leave the ground. (4) As the feet hit with the opposite foot to the throwing arm to the body. Maintain the 90-degree elbow
action. (5) Eyes focused forward, keeping the the ground together, absorb the impact by (transferring weight from the back foot to bend. (3) High knee lift (The thigh is almost
head and trunk stable. Each step was bending the knees, hips and ankles. Having the front foot). (6) Hips rotate first, followed parallel with the ground). (4) The foot is close
repeated for the left leg. The children were completed several Standing Broad Jumps by the shoulders. (7) Throwing arm moves to the buttocks on kickback. (5) Run on the
then allowed 2 minutes to practice their step by step with the teacher, the children forward, releasing the tennis ball and follows balls of the feet. The children were then
single leg hopping on each leg in their own were allowed 2 minutes to practice some in through in the direction of the target and allowed 2 minutes to practice in their own
time. The teacher observed the children and their own time. During this time the teacher down across the body. The children were time.
teaching points were given when required. observed the children. Teaching points were then allowed 2 minutes to practice in their
given when required. own time.

(Continued)

Page 9 of 16
 Table 2. (Continued)
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1724065

Game 1: “Find someone who?” (5 minutes) Game 1: “Jumping Spots” (5 minutes) Game 1: “Litterbug” (5 minutes) Game 1: “Go Grab it” (5 minutes)
Each child finds a space in the hall. The game Each child is given a spot marker which they The indoor hall is split in half using cones. The The children are split into four teams. Each
begins with the teacher saying: “Find place on the ground ensuring they have children are split into two equal teams and team lines up behind a hula hoop at one end
Costello & Warne, Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065

someone who … has the same eye colour as enough space from other children. When the each team is assigned one half of the hall. of the hall. A large number of bean bags,
you”. The children must single leg hop music plays, the children walk around the Each child is given a small, soft, sponge ball. cones, tennis racquets, balls etc. are placed
around the hall, find a partner with the same hall. When the music stops the children must On the teacher’s whistle both groups begin at the other end of the hall. On the teacher’s
eye colour and make a shape (e.g. rolling into jump onto the closest spot marker using throwing the sponge balls, using an overarm whistle the first child from each team sprint
a ball or spreading their arms to look like a standing broad jump. When the music throw, out of their half into the other teams’ runs to the other end of the hall, grabs
a star). They hold the shape for 5 seconds plays again, the children use a different half. The children continue throwing for a set a piece of equipment and returns to their
and then begin single leg hopping around the locomotor skill to move around the hall, e.g. period, throwing back any sponge balls that team as quickly as possible. The piece of
hall again. On the teacher’s whistle the running, skipping, hopping and once again on land in their half of the hall. The winning equipment is placed in the hula hoop and
children freeze and the teacher repeats the hearing the teacher’s whistle the child must team is the team that has the least number only then is the next team member allowed
activity using a different instruction such as jump onto the closest sport marker using of sponge balls in their half at the end. to go. The team with the most amount of
“find someone who has the same hair colour a standing broad jump. equipment in their hula hoop at the end is
as you”. the winning team. Each game lasts a set
period of time.

Game 2: “Rabbit in the Burrow” (5 minutes) Game 2: “Creature Alley” (5 minutes) Game 2: “How far can you throw?” (5 Game 2: “Lifesaver Tag” (5 minutes)
Each child finds a space in the hall. The Using cones, the teacher sets up two alleys minutes) Each child finds a space in the hall. Two
teacher places 20 hula hoop randomly on (3 metres wide) the length of the hall. Bean The children are split into groups of two. Each children are given a bib to wear and
the hall floor. On hearing “Run Rabbits!” the bags, spot markers, bollards and other pair is given a bean bag and some chalk. The nominated as the “taggers”. A third pupil is
children single leg hop around the hall. On obstacles (creatures) are scattered close children line up in their pairs, one behind the nominated as the “lifesaver” and is given
hearing ‘Burrow!” they single leg hop into together inside each of the alleys. The class is other, along one side of the hall, behind the a hula hoop to carry. On the teacher’s whistle
any Burrow (Hula Hoop) as quickly as split into two groups and each group is throwing line (a line of cones). On the the rest of the children run freely around the
possible. Any child without a burrow must do assigned an alley. The child must jump from teacher’s whistle, using an overarm throw, hall. When a child is “tagged” they must
10 Jumping Jacks and then re-joins the the start of the alley to the end using the first child from each pair throws the bean freeze on the spot. In order to be freed the
game. A hula hoop is removed and the game standing broad jumps without stepping on bag as far as possible. The child walks to “lifesaver” must place the hula hoop over the
is played again. The game finishes when any of the creatures. If a child steps on where it lands and using a piece of chalk child’s head and move it down their body
there are 10 hula hoops left. Children are a creature they must return to the start and writes his/her initials beside it, before picking until it touches the ground. The freed child
encouraged to alternate legs to avoid wait their turn before attempting, it again. up the beanbag and returning to the now becomes the “lifesaver”. The game is
fatigue. When the child gets to the end of the alley throwing line. The activity is repeated until played for a set period of time. For each new
they must run back to the start, tag the next each child has had five attempts, each time game, a different “lifesaver” and “taggers”
person to go and join the end of the line. The trying to increase the distance of their throw. are nominated.
two groups finish by having a race against
each other. Each child that makes it to the
end of the alley successfully, sits down. The
first group to have all their team sitting
down, wins.

Page 10 of 16
Notes: Each week plan was conducted twice per week over 30-minute period. Each lesson concluded with two quick games where children were encouraged to remember the teaching points learned in
the previous section while playing the games.
Costello & Warne, Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1724065

Table 3. Mean (± SD) for total fundamental motor skills (FMS) scores comparing the two groups
(control, intervention) over the four-week intervention period (pre, post)
Group N Pre (FMS score) Post (FMS Score)
Control—Male 27 16.71 (± 5.34) 16.71 (± 5.31)
Control—Female 22 14.55 (± 3.9) 14.68 (± 4.0)
Intervention—Male 31 17.42 (± 4.79) 26.35 (± 2.98)
Intervention—Female 20 14.75 (± 3.84) 26.6 (± 2.78)

to females at the pre-test (p = 0.04; Mean diff = 2.67 [0.11 to 5.23]; Cohen’s d = 0.61 [Medium]), but no
difference between genders at post-test (p = 0.77; Mean diff = −0.25 [−1.92 to 1.43]; Cohen’s d = 0.09
[Trivial]). Both the male (p ≤ 0.001; Mean diff = 0.893 [7.79 to 10.08]; Cohen’s d = 2.24 [V. Large]), and
female group (p ≤ 0.001; Mean diff = 11.85 [10.45 to 13.25]; Cohen’s d = 3.54 [V. Large]) significantly
improved fundamental motor skills scores as a result of the intervention.

When examining the inter-tester reliability of the scoring method, we observed excellent agree-
ment (two-way mixed ICC = 0.86; 95% CI [0.53 to 0.96]; TE = 1.7 points; P [difference] = 0.798) for
the total points scored.

5. Discussion
The primary outcome of the present study is that children who completed the four-week
Fundamental Motor Skills Intervention increased their proficiency in the fundamental motor skills
significantly when compared to a control group, and therefore we accept the research hypothesis.
Specifically, we noted a mean increase of 10.08 on overall FMS score when we examine the
effectiveness of the intervention. We believe the study is novel as this area of research specifically
is very underutilised. The fact the children’s PE lessons for the week were modified as opposed to
adding additional physical activity sessions/lessons or completely changing the Physical Education
Curriculum shows not only the effectiveness of the intervention but also the possibility that such
an intervention could be introduced to other Primary Schools quite easily.

The results of our study were similar to the systematic review and meta-analyses by Morgan
et al. (2013) and Logan et al. (2012) where results indicated that motor skill interventions are
effective. Teachers can use the methods in the present study to teach these focused fundamental
motor skills classes, using the different games to reinforce the different skills. Anecdotally we
observed that this adds an element of fun to the lessons and helps to keep the children engaged.
However, this is certainly not supported by evidence from testing. The authors believe the inter-
vention was successful because not only were lessons well planned and fun, instructions were easy
to follow and kept to a minimum. Having taught the majority of the children, the children were
familiar with the primary researcher which created an environment where the children were at
ease, more inclined to listen and comfortable in asking questions if needed.

Interestingly, whilst we did observe significantly higher fundamental motor skills scores in males
vs. females at the pre-test for the intervention group, in line with Booth et al. (1999); Spessato
et al. (2013); Erwin and Castelli (2008) which all contained boys and girls of similar age to our
present study, we observed no difference in fundamental motor skills scores between genders
following the intervention. This observation rejects our research hypothesis. The intervention
appears to have narrowed the gap between FMS competency in males vs females, but the reasons
for this are not entirely clear. Anecdotally, the primary researcher observed groups of girls practi-
cing the taught fundamental motor skills at lunch times while the boys tended to partake in small
sided soccer and basketball games. Regardless of the reason, given the abundance of literature
identifying girls as the “at-risk” population for fundamental motor skills and lifelong physical
activity (Evans, 2008; Goodway, Famelia, & Bakhtiar, 2014; Slater & Tiggemann, 2010), this finding

Page 11 of 16
 Table 4. Individual FMS tests descriptives
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1724065

Test Control - Male Control - Female Intervention - Male Intervention - Female

Time Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Costello & Warne, Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065

Hop 6.37 (± 2.50) 6.37 (± 2.51) 5.27 (± 2.31) 5.32 (± 2.36) 6.61 (± 1.98) 9.13 (± 1.45) 5.70 (± 2.08) 9.35 (± 1.09)

Jump 3.89 (± 1.99) 3.93 (± 1.90) 3.50 (± 2.11) 3.55 (± 1.92) 4.39 (± 2.29) 6.58 (± 1.18) 4.00 (± 1.95) 6.60 (± 1.05)

Throw 3.52 (± 2.15) 3.48 (± 2.08) 2.91 (± 1.54) 2.91 (± 1.51) 3.52 (± 1.59) 5.45 (± 0.68) 2.80 (± 1.01) 5.45 (± 0.83)

Run 2.93 (± 1.41) 2.93 (± 1.41) 2.86 (± 1.73) 2.91 (± 1.63) 2.90 (± 1.22) 5.19 (± 0.65) 2.25 (± 0.97) 5.20 (± 0.52)

Page 12 of 16
Costello & Warne, Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1724065

can only be seen as positive if it balances the fundamental motor skills competencies of young
children between gender. The types of activity in the intervention may have greater appeal to girl’s
participation and potential sustainability to participating in general Physical Activity and not sport-
specific activity.

The initial testing of the school children highlighted their Fundamental Motor Skills incompe-
tence. If we define proficiency as possessing all, or all but one required criteria of a skill, we see
that pre-intervention, zero children in our study (0%) were proficient in the single leg hop, 10
children (20%) were proficient in the standing broad jump, four children (8%) were proficient in the
overarm throw and four children (8%) were proficient in the sprint run. The authors believe there
are several reasons for this illiteracy. The Department of Education and Skills in Ireland recom-
mends that children get 60 minutes a week of Physical Education (Woods et al., 2010). However,
just 46 minutes was found to be the average time spent in Physical Education and in fact, only 35%
of the children are getting the required 60 minutes a week as recommended (Woods et al., 2010).
Interestingly the average weekly PE time in the European Union is 109 minutes a week (Hardman,
2008). In fact, the average time donated to PE a year in Ireland is a mere 37 hours compared to
France at 108 hours (Hardman, 2008). Therefore, Irish Primary School Children are not getting
enough exposure to Physical Education weekly, although it could be argued that it is the quality of
the instruction and design that is more important. Also, Woods et al. (2010) noted that most of the
activities children are being exposed to are from the games strand of the Primary School Physical
Education Curriculum, where others may be neglected. Therefore, not only are Irish Primary School
Children potentially not getting enough exposure to Physical Education weekly, they are certainly
not being exposed enough to each of the different Curriculum strands which may help explain the
poor current levels in physical literacy. Finally, in secondary schools in Ireland PE is taught by
a specialist teacher; however, at Primary Level, it is taught (along with all the other subjects) by
a generalist teacher. Even though there is an element of Physical Education training in teacher
training colleges in Ireland, many teachers believe that the time donated to it is inadequate and
therefore some class teachers feel they haven’t the confidence or competence to teach
PE (Broderick & Shiel, 2000). Also, there is evidence that schools struggle to find the time to
teach the basic curriculum (English, Irish, Mathematics, etc., Connor, 2003; Woods et al., 2010).
Therefore, PE lessons are possibly being rushed or unfortunately sacrificed entirely.

Given the links between fundamental motor skills and numerous factors, such as lifelong
physical activity (Stodden et al., 2008), sports participation, and competence (Lubans et al.,
2010), and obesity (Okely et al., 2004) to name a few, a national surveillance system to monitor
changes in Physical Education needs to be in place so that changes and progress can be evaluated
(Bryant, Duncan, Birch, & James, 2016). Most Irish Primary Schools participate in an “Active
Schools” week once a year (www.activeschoolflag.ie). During this week, class teachers make
a far greater effort to get their children active, whether it is participating in the “Daily Mile”
challenge, 30 seconds of activity such as jogging on the spot in between lessons or adding
a physical activity element to the homework such as star jumps or laps of the garden. Instead
of “Active Schools” week being an annual event it could easily be a termly event or even more
regular. It must be remembered that Physical Literacy is just as important as “Literacy Literacy”.
Investment is needed nationwide, and indeed worldwide, to combat this issue in the future.
Regardless, we have demonstrated that even within the current physical education infrastructure,
significant positive changes can be made to fundamental motor skills for children using focused,
fun activities (Logan et al., 2012; Morgan et al., 2013).

There are some limitations noted in this study: as children from only one school were used in the
study, the generalisability of the results observed is limited. It is therefore unknown if similar
results would be observed nationwide. Furthermore, one may argue that testing of just four
fundamental motor skills does not provide a good representation of FMS. However, the authors
feel that the four skills tested represent the three fundamental motor skill categories of body
management (hopping on one leg), locomotor (running and jumping) and object control (throwing)

Page 13 of 16
Costello & Warne, Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1724065

(Hands & McIntyre, 2015). For the purpose of our study, the fundamental skills were taught in the
following order: Singe Leg Hop, Standing Broad Jump, The overarm Throw, and Sprint Run, which
may be a limitation. The Education Department of Western Australia (2013) recommends that the
fundamental motor skills should be taught in the following order: Sprint Run, Standing Broad Jump,
Single Leg Hop, and The overarm throw. They maintain that even though the fundamental motor
skills are not necessarily mastered in this order, by ordering them as such, there is a progression
from the easiest skill to the most difficult (Education Department of Western Australia, 2013). This
is something that should be examined further in future research. Even though the results of our
intervention were promising, typically, most of the literature on FMS has focused on longer
intervention to determine the impact of an intervention (Logan et al., 2012). However, given that
schools focus on topics per month (four weeks) or per term (6 weeks), we believe that a four-week
intervention is a feasible approach and presents an useable approach for primary schools. Finally,
retention of the fundamental motor skills was not measured in this study, and future research
should examine if the children maintain fundamental motor skills competency after an extended
period of regular physical education classes.

Conclusion
It can be concluded that a four-week fundamental motor skills intervention of two 30-minute
lessons a week can significantly improve eight to 10-year-old male and females in their proficiency
of the Fundamental Motor Skills. Teachers can use the methods in the present study to teach these
focused fundamental motor skills classes, using the different games to reinforce the different
skills. We believe this intervention is feasible within the confines of a limited school PE curriculum
in 8- to 10-year-old children so that focused fundamental motor skills literacy becomes a key part
of the child’s education for the future.

Funding Booth, M. L., Okely, T., McLellan, L., Phongsavan, P.,

The author(s) received no financial funding for the research, Macaskill, P., Patterson, J., … Holland, B. (1999). Mastery
authorship, and/or publication of this article. of fundamental motor skills among New South Wales
school students: Prevalence and sociodemographic
Author details distribution. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 2
Keith Costello1 (2), 93–105. doi:10.1016/S1440-2440(99)80189-3
E-mail: [email protected] Bremer, E., & Cairney, J. (2018). Fundamental movement
E-mail: [email protected] skills and health-related outcomes: A narrative
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1450-4416 review of longitudinal and intervention studies tar-
Joe Warne1,2 geting typically developing children. American
E-mail: [email protected] Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 12(2), 148–159.
1
Thurles Enterprise Centre, Setanta College, Thurles, doi:10.1177/1559827616640196
Ireland. Broderick, D., & Shiel, G. (2000). Diet and activity patterns of
2
Department of Applied Science, Technological University children in primary schools in Ireland. Dublin: St:
Dublin, Tallaght Campus, Dublin, Ireland. Patrick’s College.
Bryant, E. S., Duncan, M. J., Birch, S. L., & James, R. S.
correction (2016). Can fundamental movement skill mastery be
This article has been republished with minor changes. increased via a six-week physical activity interven-
These changes do not impact the academic content of tion to have positive effects on physical activity and
the article. physical self-perception? Sports, 4(1), 10.
doi:10.3390/sports4010010
Citation information Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the beha-
Cite this article as: A four-week fundamental motor skill vioural sciences. New York, NY: Academic press.
intervention improves motor skills in eight to 10-year-old Connor, S. (2003). Youth sport in Ireland: The sporting,
Irish primary school children, Keith Costello & Joe Warne, leisure, and lifestyle patterns of Irish adolescents.
Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065. Dublin, Ireland: Liffey Press.
Education Department of Western Australia. (2013).
References Fundamental movement skills learning, teaching and
Balyi, I., & Hamilton, A. (2004). Long-term athlete devel- assessment book 1: Preparing children for an active
opment: Trainability in childhood and adolescence. and healthy lifestyle (1st ed.). Perth, WA.
Olympic Coach, 16(1), 4–9. Erwin, H. E., & Castelli, D. M. (2008). National physical
Balyi, I., Way, R., & Higgs, C. (2013). Long-term athlete education standards: A summary of student perfor-
development. Human Kinetics. Champaign, USA. mance and its correlates. Research Quarterly for
Barnett, L. M., Van Beurden, E., Morgan, P. J., Brooks, L. O., Exercise and Sport, 79(4), 495–505. doi:10.1080/
& Beard, J. R. (2008). Does childhood motor skill 02701367.2008.10599516
proficiency predict adolescent fitness? Medicine & Evans, K. (2008). Dropping out and hanging out: Girls and
Science in Sports & Exercise, 40(12), 2138. organised sports participation. Australasian Parks and
doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818160d3 Leisure, 11(2), 44.

Page 14 of 16
Costello & Warne, Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1724065

Farmer, O., Belton, S., & O’Brien, W. (2017). The relation- Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75(3),
ship between actual fundamental motor skill profi- 238–247. doi:10.1080/02701367.2004.10609157
ciency, perceived motor skill confidence and Pate, R. R., Pfeiffer, K. A., Trost, S. G., Ziegler, P., &
competence, and physical activity in 8–12-year-old Dowda, M. (2004). Physical activity among children
Irish female youth. Sports, 5(4), 74. doi:10.3390/ attending preschools. Pediatrics, 114(5), 1258–1263.
sports5040074 doi:10.1542/peds.2003-1088-L
Fisher, A., Reilly, J. J., Kelly, L. A., Montgomery, C., Physical Education. (1999). Retrieved from http://www.cur
Williamson, A., Paton, J. Y., & Grant, S. (2005). riculumonline.ie/Primary/Curriculum-Areas/Physical-
Fundamental movement skills and habitual physical Education
activity in young children. Medicine & Science in Rosenheck, R. (2008). Fast food consumption and
Sports & Exercise, 37(4), 684–688. doi:10.1249/01. increased caloric intake: A systematic review of
MSS.0000159138.48107.7D a trajectory towards weight gain and obesity risk.
Fundamental Motor Skills. (1996). In fundamental motor Obesity Reviews, 9(6), 535–547. doi:10.1111/
skills: A manual for classroom teachers (pp. 1–58). obr.2008.9.issue-6
Victoria: Community Information Service. Ross, A. N. N., & Butterfield, S. A. (1989). The effects of
Goodway, J. D., Famelia, R., & Bakhtiar, S. (2014). Future a dance movement education curriculum on selected
directions in physical education & sport: Developing psychomotor skills of children in grades K-8.
fundamental motor competence in the early years is Research in Rural Education, 6(1), 51–56.
paramount to lifelong physical activity. Asian Social Rudd, J. R., Barnett, L. M., Farrow, D., Berry, J., Borkoles, E.,
Science, 10(5), 44. doi:10.5539/ass.v10n5p44 & Polman, R. (2017). Effectiveness of a 16-week
Hands, B., & McIntyre, F. (2015). Assessment of fundamental gymnastics curriculum at developing movement
movement skills in Australian children: The validation of competence in children. Journal of Science and
a Fundamental Motor Skills Quotient (FMSQ). Malaysian Medicine in Sport, 20(2), 164–169. doi:10.1016/j.
Journal of Sport Science and Recreation, 11(1), 1–12. jsams.2016.06.013
Hardman, K. (2008). Physical education in schools: A global Slater, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2010). “Uncool to do sport”:
perspective. Kinesiology: International Journal of A focus group study of adolescent girls’ reasons for
Fundamental and Applied Kinesiology, 40(1), 5–28. withdrawing from physical activity. Psychology of
Hume, C., Okely, A., Bagley, S., Telford, A., Booth, M., Sport and Exercise, 11(6), 619–626. doi:10.1016/j.
Crawford, D., & Salmon, J. (2008). Does weight status psychsport.2010.07.006
influence associations between children’s funda- Spessato, B. C., Gabbard, C., Valentini, N., & Rudisill, M.
mental movement skills and physical activity? (2013). Gender differences in Brazilian children’s
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79(2), fundamental movement skill performance. Early
158–165. doi:10.1080/02701367.2008.10599479 Child Development and Care, 183(7), 916–923.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. doi:10.1080/03004430.2012.689761
American Psychologist, 60(6), 581. doi:10.1037/0003- Stodden, D. F., Goodway, J. D., Langendorfer, S. J.,
066X.60.6.581 Roberton, M. A., Rudisill, M. E., Garcia, C., &
Lloyd, M., Saunders, T. J., Bremer, E., & Tremblay, M. S. Garcia, L. E. (2008). A developmental perspective on
(2014). Long-term importance of fundamental motor the role of motor skill competence in physical activ-
skills: A 20-year follow-up study. Adapted Physical ity: An emergent relationship. Quest, 60(2), 290–306.
Activity Quarterly, 31(1), 67–78. doi:10.1123/ doi:10.1080/00336297.2008.10483582
apaq.2013-0048 van Beurden, E., Barnett, L. M., Zask, A., Dietrich, U. C.,
Logan, S. W., Robinson, L. E., Wilson, A. E., & Lucas, W. A. Brooks, L. O., & Beard, J. (2003). Can we skill and
(2012). Getting the fundamentals of movement: A meta- activate children through primary school physical
analysis of the effectiveness of motor skill interventions education lessons? “Move it Groove it”—a collabora-
in children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 38(3), tive health promotion intervention. Preventive
305–315. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.01307.x Medicine, 36(4), 493–501. doi:10.1016/S0091-
Lubans, D. R., Morgan, P. J., Cliff, D. P., Barnett, L. M., & 7435(02)00044-0
Okely, A. D. (2010). Fundamental movement skills in Watson, N. V. (2001). Sex differences in throwing:
children and adolescents. Sports Medicine, 40(12), Monkeys having a fling. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
1019–1035. doi:10.2165/11536850-000000000-00000 5(3), 98–99. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01595-3
Morgan, P. J., Barnett, L. M., Cliff, D. P., Okely, A. D., Scott, H. A., Whelton, H., Harrington, J., Crowley, E., Kelleher, V.,
Cohen, K. E., & Lubans, D. R. (2013). Fundamental Cronin, M., & Perry, I. J. (2007). Prevalence of over-
movement skill interventions in youth: A systematic weight and obesity on the island of Ireland: Results
review and meta-analysis. Paediatrics, 132(5), e1361– from the North South survey of children’s height,
e1383. weight and body mass index, 2002. BMC Public Health,
O’Brien, W., Belton, S., & Issartel, J. (2016). Fundamental 7(1), 187. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-187
movement skill proficiency amongst adolescent Woods, C.B., Tannchill D. Quinlan, A., Moyna, N., & Walsh,
youth. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21(6), J. (2010). The children’s sport participation and phy-
557–571. doi:10.1080/17408989.2015.1017451 sical activity study (CSPPA study). Research No.1.
Okely, A. D., Booth, M. L., & Chey, T. (2004). Relationships Dublin, Ireland: School of Health and Human
between body composition and fundamental move- Performance, Dublin City University and The Irish
ment skills among children and adolescents. Sports Council.

Page 15 of 16
Costello & Warne, Cogent Social Sciences (2020), 6: 1724065
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1724065

© 2020 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Social Sciences (ISSN: 2331-1886) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

Page 16 of 16