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.

A Commentary on Whitall and Colleagues’ 2020 Article “Motor Development Research: II. The First Two Decades of the 21st Century Shaping Our Future”

This commentary reflects on the discussions of Whitall et al.’s paper “Motor Development Research: II. The First Two Decades of the 21st Century Shaping Our Future.” Comments focus on (a) the emergence and importance of the Developmental Systems approach to motor development, (b) the perceived ambiguity between Dynamic and Developmental Systems approaches, and (c) a case for the evolution of Developmental Motor Neuroscience from the field of Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience.

Perceptual-Motor and Perceptual-Cognitive Skill Acquisition in Soccer: A Systematic Review on the Influence of Practice Design and Coaching Behavior

Facilitating players' skill acquisition is a major challenge within sport coaches' work which should be supported by evidence-based recommendations outlining the most effective practice and coaching methods. This systematic review aimed at accumulating empirical knowledge on the influence of practice design and coaching behavior on perceptual-motor and perceptual-cognitive skill acquisition in soccer. A systematic search was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines across the databases SPORTDiscus, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, and Web of Science to identify soccer-specific intervention studies conducted in applied experimental settings (search date: 22nd November 2020). The systematic search yielded 8,295 distinct hits which underwent an independent screening process. Finally, 34 eligible articles, comprising of 35 individual studies, were identified and reviewed regarding their theoretical frameworks, methodological approaches and quality, as well as the interventions' effectiveness. These studies were classified into the following two groups: Eighteen studies investigated the theory-driven instructional approaches Differential Learning, Teaching Games for Understanding, and Non-linear Pedagogy. Another seventeen studies, most of them not grounded within a theoretical framework, examined specific aspects of practice task design or coaches' instructions. The Downs and Black checklist and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication were applied to assess the quality in reporting, risk of bias, and the quality of interventions' description. Based on these assessments, the included research was of moderate quality, however, with large differences across individual studies. The quantitative synthesis of results revealed empirical support for the effectiveness of coaching methodologies aiming at encouraging players' self-exploration within representative scenarios to promote technical and tactical skills. Nevertheless, "traditional" repetition-based approaches also achieved improvements with respect to players' technical outcomes, yet, their impact on match-play performance remains widely unexplored. In the light of the large methodological heterogeneity of the included studies (e.g., outcomes or control groups' practice activities), the presented results need to be interpreted by taking the respective intervention characteristics into account. Overall, the current evidence needs to be extended by theory-driven, high-quality studies within controlled experimental designs to allow more consolidated and evidence-based recommendations for coaches' work.

Motor Development Research: I. The Lessons of History Revisited (the 18th to the 20th Century)

In 1989, Clark and Whitall asked the question, “What is motor development?” They were referring to the study of motor development as an academic research enterprise and answered their question primarily by describing four relatively distinct time periods characterized by changes in focus, theories or concepts, and methodology. Their last period was named the process-oriented period (1970–1989). In hindsight, it seems clear that their last period could be divided into two separate historical time periods: the information-processing period (1970–1982) and the dynamical systems period (1982–2000). In the present paper, we briefly revisit the first three periods defined by Clark and Whitall, and expand and elaborate on the two periods from 1970 to the turn of the century. Each period is delineated by key papers and the major changes in focus, theories or concepts, and methodology. Major findings about motor development are also described from some papers as a means of showing the progression of knowledge.