PHYSICAL FITNESS , SELF-PERCEPTION AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN CHILDREN WITH DIFFERENT MOTOR COMPETENCE

Vigdis Vedul-Kjelsås Faculty of Teacher and Interpreter Education, Physical Education, Sør-Trøndelag University College, Trondheim, Norway Ann-Katrin Stensdotter Faculty of Health Education and Social Work, Physiotherapy, Sør-Trøndelag University College, Trondheim, Norway Monika Haga Faculty of Health Education and Social Work, Physiotherapy, Sør-Trøndelag University College, Trondheim, Norway Hermundur Sigmundsson Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)


INTRODUCTION
Skilled movement is described as a fundamental component of human life, and a person"s level of performance in different motor acts, including coordination of both fine and gross motor skills is defined as motor competence (Henderson & Sugden, 1992).Level of motor competence is found to be related to physical fitness (Haga, 2008a;Hands, 2008) and self-perception (Barnett, Morgan, van Beurden, & Beard, 2008;Vedul-Kjelsås, Sigmundsson, Stensdotter, & Haga, 2012).Additionally, motor competence might be seen as a determinant of participation in and level of physical activity (Wrotniak, Epstein, Dorn, Jones, & Kondilis, 2006).
Especially, it is emphasized that children with low motor competence are less physically active than children with higher motor competence (Barnett et al., 2008;Barnett, van Beurden, Morgan, Brooks, & Beard, 2009;Cantell, Crawford, & Tish Doyle-Baker, 2008;Williams et al., 2008;Wrotniak et al., 2006).Physical activity is defined as the movement of the body produced by the skeletal muscles, resulting in energy expenditure above resting values (Bouchard, Blair, & Haskell, 2007;Caspersen, Powell, & Christenson, 1985).Evidence of positive health effects from participation in physical activity is considerable, for example maintenance of a healthy weight, increased bone mass, prevention of cardiovascular risk factors and EUJAPA, Vol. 8, No. 1 improved psychosocial outcomes (Andersen et al., 2006;Boreham & Riddoch, 2001;Cairney, Hay, Faught, & Hawes, 2005;Sallis, Prochaska, & Taylor, 2000).Reduced level of physical activity in children with low motor competence may be associated with lower performance level on several components of physical fitness, such as cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and muscular endurance and speed, compared to their typically developing peers (Haga, 2008b;Hands, 2008;Hands & Larkin, 2006;Schott, Alof, Hultsch, & Meermann, 2007;Tsiotra, Nevill, Lane, & Koutedakis, 2009).Physical fitness refers to a set of inherent or achieved personal attributes that relate to the capacity to perform physical activity and/or exercise (Caspersen et al., 1985;Ortega, Ruiz, Castillo, & Sjøstrøm, 2008).The negative interaction between low motor competence and physical fitness is found to start at an early age (Hands & Larkin, 2006) and seems to persist into adolescence (Green et al., 2011;Haga, 2009;Hands, Larkin, Straker, & Perry, 2009;Okely, Booth, & Patterson, 2001).Self-perception, is seen as a mediating factor between motor competence, physical fitness and physical activity (Barnett et al., 2008;Cairney, Hay, Wade, Faught, & Flouris, 2006;Raudsepp & Liblik, 2002;Raudsepp, Liblik, & Hannus, 2002), and has been identified as an important psychosocial correlate of motor competence (Piek, Baynam, & Barrett, 2006;Cantell, Smyth, & Ahonen, 2003).In the present study, self-perception is defined from a multidimensional perspective and the focus is on the evaluative component of the concept of the self (Harter, 1999).Applied in the theory of competence motivation (Harter, 1987), children"s perception of their own competence as positive, may promote physical activity.On the other hand, by avoiding situations where their lack of competence might come into sight, children with low motor competence may miss vital opportunities to develop their physical and social benefits of involvement in physical activity (Piek et al., 2006).Children with low motor competence are found to have lower self-perception in several sub-domains as well as global-self-worth compared to their peers (Piek et al., 2006;Poulsen, Ziviani, & Cuskelly, 2006;Skinner & Piek, 2001).This seems to persist into adolescence for them in the group with lowest motor competence, while in some of the domains no differences were revealed between the intermediate group and the group with higher motor competence (Cantell et al., 1994;2003).Thus, indicating that the consequences of low motor competence in children and adolescents are most severe to them with the poorest scores on tests.Additionally, it is found that motor coordination has an indirect impact on emotional functioning, as depression and anxiety, mediated by various self-perception domains (Rigoli, Piek, & Kane, 2012).Consequently, early competence in motor skills is of considerable significance for children"s quality of life development (Mandich, Polatajko, & Rodger, 2003).Previous findings indicate that children get a more realistic picture of their own motor competence by age (Rudisill, Mahar, & Meaney, 1993).Additionally, more recent studies show that even in preschool children there is a modest, but significant relationship between actual motor competence and perceived competence (LeGear et al., 2012;Robinson, 2010).Despite this, young children seem to have positive perceptions of their physical competence although their actual competence is low.This suggests to "provide a window of opportunity for learning and mastering motor skills" (LeGear et al., 2012), thus indicating that knowledge about a child"s self-perception may be important in all instructional settings to increase perceived positive competence and motivation for further activity.Earlier studies have investigated differences in physical fitness (Cantell et al., 2008, Haga, 2008b;2009;Hands & Larkin, 2006), physical activity (Barnett et al., 2009;Cantell et al., 2008;Williams et al., 2008;Wrotniak et al., 2006) and self-perception (Piek et al., 2006;Skinner & Piek, 2000) in children with different levels of motor competence.However, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no research where all these variables have been taken into consideration in the same study.Applied in an educational setting, a thorough investigation of all these variables in the same population, may give essential information.Additionally, comparing the children in the lowest motor competence group with the children in the highest group has been questioned as it may make the difference seem larger than it really is (Rivilis et al., 2011).This indicates that one should look at all children from the initial sample and not the extremes of the distribution.Hence, the aim of the present study was to investigate assumed differences in physical fitness, selfperception and physical activity in children at the age of 11 by dichotomizing them into lower motor competence group and higher motor competence group based on their score on Motor Assessment Battery for Children (MABC).

METHOD Sample
Following approval of the experimental protocol by the Norwegian Regional Ethics Committee (ref:2009/958), the total population of the 6th grade school children (n = 82, 35 girls and 47 boys) in a local mainstream primary school in a Norwegian city, were invited to participate in the study.Both parents and children were given verbally and written information about the study.Furthermore, all parents provided written informed consent on behalf of the children involved in the study prior to completing the experimental paradigm, and all procedures were carried out in accordance with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.Approval was obtained for 69 children (29 girls and 40 boys).Two were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria, consisting of no history of learning difficulties or any behavioural, neurological, or orthopaedic problem.Accordingly, 67 children (28 girls and 39 boys) constituted the sample.The mean age of the participants was 11.5 years (SD 0.27,.From the sample of 67 pupils, the children were divided into 2 groups on the basis of their MABC scores (see Table 1), and 26 children constitute the lower motor competence (LMC) group.According to the manual of MABC, a score of 13.5 or more is an indicative of a definitive motor problem (Henderson & Sugden, 1992).In the present study the children scoring at or above a total score of 13.5 (a high score indicates motor problems) were categorized as having lower motor competence (LMC), while the children scoring below 13.5 forms the higher motor competence group (HMC).2) two tests of ball skills, and 3) three tests of static and dynamic balance.On each sub-test the child receives a score from 0-5, 0 representing the best performance.The scores on each of the eight sub-tests add up a total impairment score.In their manual, Henderson and Sugden (1992, page 109), have made a table with detailed information on the total score distributions and percentiles, which might be useful in research purposes to get more information about detailed differentiations between children.

Test of Physical Fitness (TPF).
TPF is a test battery that aims to provide a reliable, objective quantification of physical fitness levels in children aged 5-12 years (Fjørtoft, Pedersen, Sigmundsson, & Vereijken, 2003;2011).TPF consists of activities that are naturally included in most children"s everyday play activities, e.g.jumping, throwing, running and climbing.Additionally, TPF focuses on compound activities that recruit varying combinations of multiple factors such as strength, endurance and motor coordination (Fjørtoft et al., 2003;2011).The battery consists of nine test items which are the same for all ages (5-12): three items are based on jumping, two on throwing, one on climbing and three on running.Most items also appear in measures such as the EUROFIT (Adam et al. 1998), the AST 6-11 (Bös andWohlmann, 1987), the FBH-test (Bille, 1992), while the test item "climbing wall bars" was especially designed for the TPF (Fjørtoft et al., 2003).Test-retest correlation for the total score of the TPF is high, 0.90, and the construct validity of the test was 0.93 for girls and 0.89 for boys (Spearman"s rho; Fjørtoft et al. 2003;2011).The nine test items are explained in Table 2.The following materials were used for administering the test items: masking tape, ruler, stopwatch, tennis ball, medicine ball (1 kg), wall bars at least 4 columns wide, and gymnasium mats.

The Self Perception Profile for Children (SPPC).
SPPC is a questionnaire devised to tap children"s domain-specific judgements of their scholastic competence, social acceptance, athletic competence, physical appearance and behavioural conduct, as well as a separate subscale that assesses global self-worth.Global self-worth is not the sum of the domain-specific subscale scores, but consists of its own set of items assessing the individuals" evaluation of his/her worth as a person (Harter, 1985;1999).The test consists of a structured-alternative format in, which each SPPC item consists of two opposite descriptions, e.g." Some children wish they could be a lot better at sports" but "Other children feel they are good enough at sports".Firstly, the individual is asked to decide which of a pair of statements best reflects them, and secondly, they decide if it is "really true" or "sort of true" for them.This structure decreases the tendency to give socially desirable responses (Harter, 1982(Harter, , 1999)).
Each of the sub domains contains six items, constituting a total of 36 items.A mean score is computed for each subscale to form a profile of the child"s perceived competence with respect to the different domains.Items are scored either 4, 3, 2 or 1, where a score of 4 reflects the highest perceptions of competence and a score of 1 reflects the lowest perceptions of competence and a mean of 2.5 or more reflects a positive selfperception (Harter, 1985).

Physical activity (PA).
Two questions about physical activity (Table 3) were used to record the respondent"s weekly physical activity level in sports and activity.These questions were modified versions of the physical activity questions in the World Health Organization health behaviour in schoolchildren (WHO HBSC; WHO, 2000).The children were asked to report frequency and total amount of time (duration) spent in vigorously physical activities outside school hours.The questions of vigorous physical activity in WHO HBSC are reported to have acceptable validity and reliability (Booth et al., 2001), and are found to be a good indicator of physical fitness (Rangul et al., 2008).

Procedure
Participants were tested over three sessions, and all the testing took place during the school day at the children"s school.First, the questionnaires of SPPC and PA were completed in the classroom, by all children at the same time.The administrator explained carefully how the questionnaires were to be completed, read the statements twice and then gave the children sufficient time to answer each question.During this session, the children were allowed to ask if they thought something was unclear in the questionnaire.Within two weeks, the children were tested on the MABC and the TPF, respectively.The MABC was executed in classrooms in accordance with the manual of MABC.The TPF was carried out in the school sports hall.Before the child started, every test item was explained and demonstrated.Test items 1-6 on TPF were performed twice each, and the best score was used.The running tests were performed only once.If the child made a procedural error during the test, performance was interrupted and the test item repeated.Individually tested MABC and TPF, and the organizing of the tests, ensured that the children were not able to compare their performance with each other.Assistants that had been trained in the test protocols tested all the children individually.All children completed the tasks.

Data reduction and analysis
Data analysis was carried out via SPSS version 19.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).In order to express the child"s total performance on the TPF as one score, a total test score was calculated by transforming the test item scores into a standardized score (zscores) from the mean of the whole sample (n = 67).Higher scores indicate higher performance on the tasks.In order to express the amount of physical activity, the response alternatives were recoded in numeric categories (see Table 4).Differences between children with higher or lower motor competence in physical fitness, physical activity and self-perception were analyzed by using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U Test. Probability values of p <.05 were used to determine significance.

RESULTS
The results in Table 4 show highly significant differences on all tasks of TPF between children scoring at or above 13.5 compared to below 13.5 on MABC.This indicates that children categorized with LMC performed poorer on all tasks of physical fitness than the HMC-group.Additionally, the LMC-group had lower self-perception in athletic competence and social acceptance.According to days and hours of hard physical activity, results show a higher self-reported participation in physical activity in children in the HMC-group compared to the LMC-group.In table 1 the total-scores of MABC in the HMC-and LMC-group are described.

DISCUSSION
The aim of the present study was to investigate assumed differences in physical fitness, selfperception and physical activity in children with lower motor competence (LMC) and higher motor competence (HMC) based on total score on MABC.The results showed that the children in the LMC-group performed significantly poorer in all nine tasks of Test of Physical Fitness (TPF) than the HMC-group.Additionally, children in the LMC-group had lower scores on perception of social acceptance and athletic competence, and reported that they spent less time in physical activity than children in the HMC-group.The present study revealed significant differences in fitness components in children with LMC compared to children with HMC, which is in line with studies using total score on MABC in separating the groups based on level of motor competence (Cantell et al., 2008;Haga 2008b;Schott et al., 2007).Especially, lower performance of all components of the TPF in the LMC-group, is in line with the findings reported by Haga (2008b;2009).However, she investigated only the children with the lowest and highest scores of MABC, which could have exaggerated the differences between the groups (Rivilis et al., 2011).By including the whole sample, the findings lend further support to the previous indications of poorer performance on physical fitness components in children with the lowest motor competence.The test items of TPF are compound and consist of several fitness components, such as strength, endurance, motor coordination and speed (Fjørtoft et al., 2003;2011).Cardio-respiratory capability, muscular fitness, and speed/agility are emphasized as the main fitness components related to health in childhood and adolescence (Ortega et al., 2008), all of which benefit from a physically active lifestyle in early years reducing the risk of disease later in life (Bouchard et al., 2007).Lower scores in all these components in the LMC-group may influence the opportunities for these children to be active.The results revealed that the LMCgroup, participated less in physical activity (with high intensity) than children in the HMC-group.The results were based on selfreported physical activity including sweating and breathlessness, which according to Kurtze et al. (2008) represent hard or vigorous physical activity.This may indicate that the two groups in the current study differ in days and hours of weekly hard physical activity.This is in line with previous studies investigating differences in physical activity in children with varying motor competence (Barnett et al., 2009;Williams et al., 2008;Wrotniak et al., 2006).Hard or vigorous physical activity seems to yield greater benefits than moderate activity to components of health related physical fitness (Ortega et al., 2011, Hopkins et al., 2009).Hence, the reported lower levels of physical activity of children in the LMC-group could in part explain the differences in scores of TPF between the groups in the present study.As well as less physical activity, lower levels of performance in fitness tests in the LMC-group may be influenced by coordinative challenges to perform the actual task, more taxed and less efficient execution of the movements (Cantell et al., 2008;Hands & Larkin, 2006).
The present study revealed a significant difference in perceived athletic competence and social acceptance in children in the LMC-group compared to children in the HMC group.Children in the LMC-group perceived themselves as less competent in the athletic domain than their peers.This is a rather consistent result and in line with previous studies using Harter"s instruments with subjects from preschool to adolescence (Cantell et al., 1994;2003;LeGear et al., 2012, Piek et al., 2006: Robinson, 2010;Skinner & Piek, 2001).Despite less consistency, less perceived social acceptance is also revealed in some studies (Rose, Larkin & Berger, 1997;Skinner & Piek, 2001).Cantell et al. (2003) compared the selfperception of children separated in three levels of motor competence: motor problem, intermediate and a control group with normal motor competence.They found that the children with motor problems had the lowest perceptions of athletic and scholastic competence while the differences between the intermediate and control groups were less pronounced.The current study revealed lower self-perception in the physical and social domain in the LMC-group.Despite these findings, their self-perception scores did not indicate definite low self-perception in these domains (as their scores are above 2.5).Applied in the perspective of Harters" competence motivation theory, focusing on areas where these children experience mastery may be of importance for further engagement in physical active pursuits.Additionally, one may support LeGear"s statement about using positive self-perception as a possibility to promote activity even if the actual competence is low (LeGear et al., 2012).According to the Norwegian physical education curriculum, promotion of positive self-perception and mastery are two of the main purposes, and the pupils" effort is part of the evaluating system (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2012).There are indications of positive effects of interventions with motor training in school."Motor development as Ground of Learning" (MUGI) is an example of such an intervention, and it emphasizes success instead of failure, mastery and automation of known skills with increased self-esteem and motivation as a result (Ericsson, 2011).This program is in line with the focus in a mastery-oriented climate (Wadsworth, Robinson, Rudisill & Gell, 2013).A mastery-oriented climate focus on factors such as learning and development, cooperation, creativity, self-worth, and comparing results to own previous results and is based on intrinsic motivation (Wadsworth et al., 2013).
MABC was especially designed for identification of children with mild to moderate motor difficulties (Henderson & Sugden, 1992) and never intended to differ between children at or above average profiles (Larkin & Rose, 2005).This indicates that it does not seem appropriate to separate children in groups of low and high motor competence, but rather use the term "higher motor competence" for the children scoring less than 13.5 on MABC.Despite the fact that MABC should include everyday motor skills (Henderson & Sugden, 1992), the high scores (lower motor competence) of many of the children (See Table 1) could be a result of lack of experience with the aspects measured in the MABC.Similarly, the test items themselves could have influenced the results in TPF.Although, the test items of TPF are designed to be familiar and well known activities (Fjørtoft et al., 2003) it is possible to argue that some of the tasks are more familiar to the most active children.
The relatively small sample size must be taken into account.By increasing sample size with children from several schools, one will have increased the external validity of the present study.However, the results may be important to promote children"s health behavior.Applied in a physical education setting, the current research has several implications.For example, it may be especially important to promote a positive perception of own competence, and emphasize effort and mastery rather than comparison of results in order to increase motivation for activity.

Perspectives
The present research may extend the fundamental knowledge concerning individual constraints, such as lower levels of physical fitness, self-perception and physical activity in the LMC-group compared to children with HMC.The children in the present study were at the age of 11, indicating that they have not been introduced to grades yet.Based on the main purposes of the curriculum of physical education, there is reason to believe that to introduce a mastery-oriented climate in middle school may promote children"s understanding of the importance of effort and fair play.Furthermore, this may contribute to a more favorable view on grades, as something that evaluate one"s effort and willingness to practice, as well as the actual physical and motor competence.A mastery-oriented perspective may facilitate better opportunities for well-being and development in physical education for groups of children with different challenges, such as the LMC-group in the current study.This is supported in a previous study of children with motor difficulties, reporting that participants" perception of a mastery-oriented climate positively affected their perception of competence in physical education (Dunn, 2000).The present findings highlight the importance of suitable adaption of physical activity in order to optimize individual development.
broad jump Standing long jump for a distance Jumping a distance of 7m on two feet as quickly as possible Jumping a distance of 7m on one foot as quickly as possible on self chosen leg Throwing a tennis ball as far as possible: throw with self chosen hand, one foot placed in front of the other Putting a medicine ball (1kg) with both hands as far as possible: feet parallel and a shoulder width apart and the ball held against the chest.Timed climbing and crossing wall bars (height 255 cm, width 75 cm); up the first, across two columns to the right, and down the fourth.Timed shuttle sprint, running back and forth 5 m, 10 times.Timed running 20m Reduced Cooper test: distance covered in 6 minutes running/walking around a marked rectangle (9 x 18 m, the size of a volleyball field

Table 1 .
Total score on the MABC was used in the present study.Each age band contains eight sub-tests divided into three categories: 1) three tests of manual dexterity, EUJAPA, Vol. 8, No. 1

Table 2 .
Test items of physical fitness test (TPF)

Table 3 .
Questions about physical activity outside school Outside school hours: How many days a week do you exercise so much that you (break into) sweat or

Table 4 .
Mean (SD) score for TPF, SPPC and PA for the two groups: HMC and LMC: