Male youth (8–18 years) with intellectual disability (ID) demonstrate motor proficiency below age-related competence capacities for typically developing youth. Whether below-criteria motor proficiency also exists for females with ID is not known. The purpose of this study was to determine if sex-specific differences exist in motor proficiency for youth with ID. The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency was used to measure motor proficiency: six items for upper limb coordination, seven items for balance, and six items for bilateral coordination. One hundred and seventy-two (172) males and 85 females with ID but without Down syndrome were divided into five age groups for comparative purposes: 8–10, 11–12, 13–14, 15–16, and 17–21 years. Males scored sufficiently higher than females to suggest that sex data should not be combined to established Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency standards for upper limb coordination, balance, and bilateral coordination subtests.
Ken Pitetti, Ruth Ann Miller, and E. Michael Loovis
Karin Lobenius-Palmér, Birgitta Sjöqvist, Anita Hurtig-Wennlöf, and Lars-Olov Lundqvist
This study compared accelerometer-assessed habitual physical activity (PA), sedentary time, and meeting PA recommendations among 102 youth with disabilities (7–20 years) in four subgroups—physical/visual impairments, intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorders, and hearing impairment—and 800 youth with typical development (8–16 years). Low proportions of youth with disabilities met PA recommendations, and they generally were less physically active and more sedentary than youth with typical development. The hearing impairment and autism spectrum disorder groups were the most and least physically active, respectively. Older age and to some extent female sex were related to less PA and more sedentary time. Considering the suboptimal levels of PA in youth with disabilities, effective interventions directed at factors associated with PA among them are needed.
Kelly P. Arbour-Nicitopoulos, Viviane Grassmann, Krystn Orr, Amy C. McPherson, Guy E. Faulkner, and F. Virginia Wright
The objective of this study was to comprehensively evaluate inclusive out-of-school time physical activity programs for children/youth with physical disabilities. A search of the published literature was conducted and augmented by international expertise. A quality appraisal was conducted; only studies with quality ratings ≥60% informed our best practice recommendations. Seventeen studies were included using qualitative (n = 9), quantitative (n = 5), or mixed (n = 3) designs. Programs had a diversity of age groups, group sizes, and durations. Most programs were recreational level, involving both genders. Rehabilitation staff were the most common leaders. Outcomes focused on social skills/relationships, physical skill development, and psychological well-being, with overall positive effects shown in these areas. The best practice recommendations are consistent with an abilities-based approach emphasizing common group goals and interests; cooperative activities; mastery-oriented, individualized instruction; and developmentally appropriate, challenging activities. Results indicate that inclusive out-of-school time physical activity programs are important for positive psychosocial and physical skill development of children/youth with physical disabilities.
In the article by Bardid F., Huyben F., Deconinck F.J.A., De Martelaer K., Seghers J., & Lenoir M., “Convergent and Divergent Validity Between the KTK and MOT 4-6 Motor Tests in Early Childhood, ” in Adapted Pyhsical Activity Quarterly, 33(1), the wrong DOI was printed. The DOI for this article is http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/APAQ.2014-0228. The online version has been corrected.
Jeffrey J. Martin
Yeshayahu Hutzler, Colin Higgs, and David Legg
Yeshayahu Hutzler and Devora Hellerstein
Justin A. Haegele, Jihyun Lee, and David L. Porretta
In the article by Haegele, J.A., Lee, L., and Porretta, D.L., “Research trends in Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly from 2004 to 2013”, in Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 32(3), 187–205, an incorrect DOI was printed. The correct DOI for that article is http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/APAQ.2014-0232.