Learning to Cycle: A Cross-Cultural and Cross-Generational Comparison.

Background: Learning to cycle is an important milestone for children, but the popularity of cycling and the environmental factors that promote the development and practice of this foundational movement skill vary among cultures and across time. This present study aimed to investigate if country of residence and the generation in which a person was born influence the age at which people learn to cycle. Methods: Data were collected through an online survey between November 2019 and December 2020. For this study, a total of 9,589 responses were obtained for adults (self-report) and children (parental report) living in 10 countries (Portugal, Italy, Brazil, Finland, Spain, Belgium, United Kingdom, Mexico, Croatia, and the Netherlands). Participants were grouped according to their year of birth with 20-year periods approximately corresponding to 3 generations: 1960-79 (generation X; n = 2,214); 1980-99 (generation Y; n = 3,994); 2000-2019 (generation Z; n = 3,381). Results: A two-way ANOVA showed a significant effect of country, F(9,8628) = 90.17, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.086, and generation, F(2,8628) = 47.21, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.122, on the age at which individuals learn to cycle. Countries with the lowest learning age were the Netherlands, Finland and Belgium and countries with the highest learning age were Brazil and Mexico. Furthermore, the age at which one learns to cycle has decreased across generations. There was also a significant country x generation interaction effect on learning age, F(18,8628) = 2.90, p < 0.001; however, this effect was negligible ( ηp2 = 0.006). Conclusions: These findings support the socio-ecological perspective that learning to cycle is a process affected by both proximal and distal influences, including individual, environment and time.

Is Motor Milestone Assessment in Infancy Valid and Scaled Equally Across Sex, Birth Weight, and Gestational Age? Findings From the Millennium Cohort Study.

Is the assessment of motor milestones valid and scaled equivalently for all infants? It is not only important to understand if the way we use gross and fine motor scores are appropriate for monitoring motor milestones but also to determine if these scores are confounded by specific infant characteristics. Therefore, the aim of the study is to investigate the latent structure underlying motor milestone assessment in infancy and measurement invariance across sex, birth weight, and gestational age. For this study, the birth cohort data from the United Kingdom Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) was used, which includes the assessment of eight motor milestone tasks from the Denver Developmental Screening Test in 9-month-old infants (N = 18,531), depicting early motor development of the first children of generation Z. Confirmatory factor analyses showed a better model fit for a two-factor structure (i.e., gross and fine motor development) compared to a one-factor structure (i.e., general motor development), and multiple indicators multiple causes modeling revealed no differential item functioning related to sex, birth weight, and gestational age. The study provides support for the use of gross and fine motor scores when assessing motor milestones in infants-both boys and girls with different birth weights and of varying gestational ages. Further investigation into widely adopted assessment tools is recommended to support the use of valid composite scores in early childhood research and practice.