Effects of school-based physical activity on mathematics performance in children: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of physical activity (PA) on children's health and wellbeing are well established. However, the benefits of PA on academic performance and particularly on mathematics performance warrant systematic analysis. Mathematics is one of the core subjects in school education globally. METHODS: We systematically searched, analysed and synthesized the literature on the effects of school-based PA interventions on mathematics performance in children aged 4-16. A total of 29 studies consisting of randomised trials and other interventions with control groups were identified through a systematic search, and 11 of them provided sufficient data and appropriate design for a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the 29 studies involving 11,264 participants, positive overall effects of a PA intervention on mathematics performance were found in 13 studies (45%) and neutral overall effects in 15 studies (52%). Only one study reported a significant negative result for a subgroup of children in the first half of the intervention. In a risk-of-bias assessment, 12 studies had low, 17 moderate, and none had a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis of 11 studies suggested an overall small positive effect (ES = 0.23) of the interventions. Only one study in the meta-analysis indicated a negative effect in one of the intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adding PA to the school day may enhance children's mathematics performance or has no negative effects on performance. Several types of PA interventions can be recommended to be added to the school day.

Psychometric properties of observational tools for identifying motor difficulties - a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of children with motor difficulties, such as developmental coordination disorder (DCD), is essential. At present only a fraction of children with DCD are identified. The purpose of the study was to systematically review the literature from 1994 to 2017 on observational screening tools and to evaluate the validity, reliability and usability of the questionnaires used. METHODS: The review of the literature was conducted to synthesize the data from five electronic databases for children aged 6-12 years. The following databases were searched: Academic search Elite (EBSCO), ERIC (ProQuest), MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (ProQuest), and SPORTDiscus with Full Text (EBSCO). The studies meeting our inclusion criteria were analyzed to assess the psychometric properties and feasibility of the measures. RESULTS: The literature search retrieved 1907 potentially relevant publications. The final number of studies that met the inclusion criteria of our systematic review was 45. There were 11 questionnaires for parents, teachers and children. None of the questionnaires was valid for population-based screening as the only measurement tool. CONCLUSIONS: There are many challenges in using initial screening tools to identify children with motor difficulties. Nevertheless, many promising questionnaires are being developed that can provide information on functional skills and limitations across a variety of tasks and settings in the daily lives of children with DCD. The review provides much needed information about the current scales used in many clinical, educational and research settings. Implications for assessing psychometric properties of the developed questionnaires and further research are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42018087532 .

Reliability and validity of the Finnish version of the motor observation questionnaire for teachers.

OBJECTIVES: Observational screening instruments are often used as an effective, economical first step in the identification of children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD). The aim was to investigate the psychometric properties of the Finnish version of the Motor Observation Questionnaire for Teachers (MOQ-T-FI). METHODS: The psychometric properties were tested using two separate samples (S1: age range 6-12, M 9y 5mo, females 101, males 92; S2: age range 6-9, M 7y 7mo, females 404, males 446). Teachers completed the MOQ-T-FI in both samples, and in sample 2 teachers' ratings were compared to student's performance on the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (MABC-2). Internal consistency was investigated by using Cronbach's alpha, predictive validity by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, concurrent validity by correlation analysis, and construct validity by factor analysis. RESULTS: The MOQ-T-FI behaves consistently with its original Dutch version. The internal consistency was excellent (α=0.97). The bifactor model, with one general factor and two specific factors, fit the data significantly better than the first-order model. The concurrent validity with the MABC-2 was moderate (r=0.37 p<0.001). Sensitivity was 82.5% and specificity 44.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding the low specificity the MOQ-T-FI can be considered as a promising screening tool in the school environment for Finnish children at risk of motor learning problems.

Early development of children at familial risk for dyslexia--follow-up from birth to school age.

We review the main findings of the Jyväskylä Longitudinal study of Dyslexia (JLD) which follows the development of children at familial risk for dyslexia (N = 107) and their controls (N = 93). We will illustrate the development of these two groups of children at ages from birth to school entry in the skill domains that have been connected to reading and reading disability in the prior literature. At school entry, the highest score on the decoding task among the poorer half (median) of the at risk children--i.e. of those presumably being most likely genetically affected--is 1 SD below the mean of the control group. Thus, the familial risk for dyslexia shows expected consequences. Among the earliest measures in which group differences as well as significant predictive associations with the first steps in reading have emerged, are indices of speech processing in infancy. Likewise, various measures of early language including pronunciation accuracy, phonological, and morphological skills (but not performance IQ) show both group differences and predictive correlations, the majority of which become stronger as the reliability of the measures increases by age. Predictive relationships tend to be strong in general but higher in the at risk group because of its larger variance in both the predictor variables and in the dependent measures, such as early acquisition of reading. The results are thus promising in increasing our understanding needed for early identification and prevention of dyslexia.

Developmental pathways of children with and without familial risk for dyslexia during the first years of life.

Comparisons of the developmental pathways of the first 5 years of life for children with (N = 107) and without (N = 93) familial risk for dyslexia observed in the Jyväskylä Longitudinal study of Dyslexia are reviewed. The earliest differences between groups were found at the ages of a few days and at 6 months in brain event-related potential responses to speech sounds and in head-turn responses (at 6 months), conditioned to reflect categorical perception of speech stimuli. The development of vocalization and motor behavior, based on parental report of the time of reaching significant milestones, or the growth of vocabulary (using the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories) failed to reveal differences before age 2. Similarly, no group differences were found in cognitive and language development assessed by the Bayley Scales of Infant Development and the Reynell Developmental Language Scales before age 2.5. The earliest language measure that showed lower scores among the at-risk group was maximum sentence length at age 2. Early gross motor development had higher correlation to later language skills among the at-risk group rather than the control children. The most consistent predictor of differential development between groups was the onset of talking. Children who were identified as late talkers at age 2 were still delayed at the age 3.5 in most features of language-related skills-but only if they belonged to the group at familial risk for dyslexia. Several phonological and naming measures known to correlate with reading from preschool age differentiated the groups consistently from age 3.5. Our findings imply that a marked proportion of children at familial risk for dyslexia follow atypical neurodevelopmental paths. The signs listed previously comprise a pool of candidates for early predictors and precursors of dyslexia, which await validation.