Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jul 23.
Published in final edited form as: Child Youth Care Forum. 2018 Aug 25;48(1):19–28. doi: 10.1007/s10566-018-9470-1

How Well Can Family Childcare Providers Report on Preschoolers’ Motor Skill Competence?

Roger Figueroa 1, Lisa Barnett 2, Isaac Estevan 3, Angela R Wiley 4
PMCID: PMC8300868  NIHMSID: NIHMS1014442  PMID: 34305372

Abstract

Background

Assessing children’s movement skill competence objectively is resource and time intensive. Family childcare providers (FCCPs) are with young children for most of a normal weekday and may have an understanding of their motor skill competence.

Objective

This study examined how well FCCPs can report on preschoolers’ motor skills.

Method

Seventy-eight 3–5 year olds (53.1% girls) from 26 FCCPs participated. The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 assessed actual motor skill competence and a survey assessed preschoolers’ motor competence as reported by FCCPs. Bivariate correlations examined associations between actual and FCCPs’ proxy-report of preschoolers’ motor skill competence. Regression models tested the predictive power of FCCPs’ proxy-report on actual preschoolers’ motor skill competence, accounting for age and sex.

Results

There were moderate significant correlations for locomotion (r = .30), object control (r = .38), and overall motor skill competence (r = .36). The regression models showed proxy report was statistically associated with preschoolers’ object control skills (β = .78, p = .011) and overall motor skills (β = .72, p = .022), but not locomotor skills (β = .52, p = .084). FCCPs’ proxy-report of preschoolers’ motor skill competence explained 20.9, and 20.1% of preschoolers’ variance in object control, and overall motor skill competence, respectively after adjusting for biological sex and age (increasing).

Conclusions

FCCPs may be used as an alternative source of information in reporting young children’s actual motor skill competence, at least for the object control domain. There is an opportunity for education of FCCPs regarding children’s locomotor skill development.

Keywords: Motor skill competence, Preschoolers, Family childcare, Perception

Introduction

The preschool years, when children spend much of their day in out-of-home care, is critical for developing motor skill competence (Clark 2017). Motor skill competence is a child’s movement coordination quality when performing different motor skills, ranging on a continuum from gross to fine motor skills (D’Hondt et al. 2009). Many fundamental motor skills (e.g., running, jumping, throwing, and catching) develop during preschool years (Shenouda et al. 2011), and have profound effects on the health and development children and youth as they grow (Barnett et al. 2016a, b; Cattuzzo et al. 2016; Robinson et al. 2015; Stodden et al. 2008).

Preschool environments may shape children’s motor skill competence (Figueroa and An 2017). Motor skill competence also fosters greater interaction with early childhood environments (Ulrich 2000). Thus, improvements in motor skill competence are intertwined with the quality of the preschool setting (True et al. 2017). One such setting is family child care, home-based childcare environments that are mostly in private homes with smaller groups of mixed-age children (Office of Personnel Management 2016). Family child care settings are the second largest provider of non-relative care to preschoolers in the U.S., with nearly 2 million preschoolers spending about 33 h per week in these settings (Forum on Child and Family Statistics 2009; U.S. Census Bureau 2013). Since family child care providers (FCCPs) are with young children for most of a normal weekday, they may be an important untapped source of information about children’s motor skill competence. This is significant given that assessing children’s motor skill competence is resource and time intensive (Barnett et al. 2014). Therefore, gaining a proxy report from FCCPs’ regarding preschoolers’ motor skill competence may offer a viable, minimally-invasive opportunity to attain such information in an otherwise understudied preschool population (Kit et al. 2017).

Based on past literature and through the social cognitive theoretical lens (Bandura 1997), significant others’ perceptions of children’s motor skill competence can provide valuable insight regarding actual motor skill competence (Lalor et al. 2016; Kennedy et al. 2012). As such, proxy assessments of children’s motor competence, as perceived and reported by adults have been previously developed (Brown and Lalor 2009; Cueto et al. 2017; Liong et al. 2015; Wiart and Darrah 2001; Wilson et al. 2000). Considering that children younger than 8 years of age seem to not be able to accurately judge on their own skills, capturing the perceptions of significant others’ may serve as an indicator of motor skill competence in preschoolers (Barnett et al. 2016a, b; Estevan et al. 2018; Harter and Pike 1984).

Those who spend significant time with children may be able to judge their motor skill competence. For example, parents and teachers [Physical Education (PE) teachers particularly] have been demonstrated to have valuable insight regarding children’s actual motor skill competence (Estevan et al. 2018; Lalor et al. 2016), with teachers showing more accuracy compared to parents (Estevan et al. 2018). Teachers are able to identify motor skill competence based on skill type, with a greater ability in distinguishing the gross motor versus the fine motor skill domain (Lalor et al. 2016). Similarly, Estevan et al. (2018) found that PE teachers’ have greater capacity in reporting on the object control (e.g., throwing, catching) domain but need specific training to identify locomotion (e.g., running, jumping). This is relevant for FCCPs as these early care educators do not provide PE to children but may provide programming geared towards physical activity (Dyment and Coleman 2012).

Capturing preschoolers’ motor skill competence through FCCPs’ reports could be an alternative source of information and referral, especially if these caregivers notice motor skill developmental delays (Rivard et al. 2007). These assessments may provide a single source of information about motor skill competence but could also contribute to a more comprehensive picture by complementing objective motor skill assessment. FCCPs’ reports about children could therefore be helpful in: (1) identifying early developmental problems in motor competence; (2) encouraging various activities as an integral part of children’s positive perceptions of their own motor skill competence; (3) helping to capture the integral development of motor skill competence over time; and (4) assessing motor skill competence grounded in a real-life context from everyday activities performed; and (5) providing additional opportunities for motor skill development in children attending family child care.

The current study examined how well FCCPs can proxy report on preschoolers’ actual locomotion, object control, and overall motor skill competence. We hypothesize that FCCPs’ proxy report of preschoolers’ actual locomotion, object control, and overall motor skill competence is significantly associated with preschoolers’ actual locomotion, object control, and overall motor skill competence as measured by a commonly used measure of actual motor competence; The Test of Gross Motor Development version 2 (TGMD-2).

Method

Participants

In this cross-sectional study, a convenience sampling recruitment strategy was employed. Seventy-eight (n = 78) preschoolers (3–5 years old; 53.1% girls) across 24 family child care settings in a mid-sized U.S. Midwestern city participated. The average age was 3.79 years (SD = .82). The majority (63%) was Caucasian, 18% were African American, and 19% were reported as ‘other.’ On average, FCCPs reported on motor skill competence for three preschoolers. All FCCPs were female (mean age 43.18; SD = 8.91). Nearly three quarters (73%) of FCCPs self-identified as Caucasian, with 18% African American, and 9% Hispanic/Latino or multi-racial. About one-fourth (26%) had a college degree; the remaining had at least a high school education. FCCPs and parents of the preschool sample gave consent and volunteered to participate in this study. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the host University granted ethics approval. No conflicts of interest are declared by the authors.

Instruments

The TGMD-2 assessed actual motor skill competence (see Ulrich 2000 for details). It examines the skill movement process (e.g., whether the throwing arm follows through after ball release) not the product (e.g., how far the ball is thrown), including a locomotor (e.g., running, galloping, hopping) and an object control subtest (e.g., striking a stationary ball, kicking, overhand throw). There are three to five criteria for each of 6 skills in each subtest (Kit et al. 2017; Ulrich 2000), each scored ‘1’ if correctly performed, or otherwise ‘0.’ Each skill was performed twice and all criteria summed. Raw scores are summed for locomotor and object control skill subtests. Subtest scores (0–48) were summed for a total movement skill score (0–96). TGMD-2 assessment lasted approximately 20 min at each family child care home, with each video recorded and subsequently coded. When video recording consent was not available, coding occurred on-site. To minimize measurement error, several steps were taken. First, the principal investigator attained an extensive training (5 h per week) facilitated by training manuals from Ulrich’s original manual (Ulrich 2000) and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (2012) TGMD-2 procedures manual 2 months prior to study implementation. Simultaneously, pilot studies were conducted during that span using the TGMD-2 assessment in family child care sites not included in the current study (n = 7 preschoolers; across three home sites). To maximize reliability efforts, coding schemes were developed to ensure agreement and congruency of coding decisions when conducting the assessment on-site by team members (n = 2). Subsequently, the established coding system for categorizing TGMD-2 battery was utilized throughout data collection by the trained team members while accounting for a priori team consensus efforts. For example, when using the TGMD-2 to assess criteria 2 (i.e., brief period where both feet are off the ground) of the running skill, the team decided children would get the criteria awarded as long as child was executing the skill at a running pace for their developmental stage even if both feet weren’t off ground.

An adapted version pictorial scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence (PMSC) assessed preschoolers’ motor skill competence as reported by FCCPs (Liong et al. 2015). Originally, the pictorial PMSC was developed for children to complete with an interviewer (Barnett et al. 2015). We used a written modification for parents (Liong et al. 2015; Estevan et al. 2018) that asked FCCPs how well the child performed each skill. Each item had a picture of a child performing each skill competently for the FCCPs to refer to. Each respondent rated each preschooler’s skill on a Likert-scale from 1 (Not that good), 2 (Sort of good at), 3 (Pretty good at) or 4 (Really good at). Scores ranged from 6 to 24 for each subscale (locomotor and object control) and from 12 to 48 for the entire scale. Alpha coefficients (Cronbach 1951) indicated high internal consistency for the locomotor (.89) and object-control sub-domains (.85) and overall motor skill competence (.92). Most PMSC assessments were administered face to face, however a few were provided in advance via mail to reduce home visit burden. Prior to implementation, the TGMD-2 and PMSC had been feasibility-tested in family child care sites (n = 4; not in our sample).

Procedure

Initial FCCP recruitment targeted only those qualified based on criteria in the study state. FCCPs had to: (a) be a licensed FCCP; (b) have at least one preschool aged child in their care; (c) be willing to pass on information and consent forms to parents. FCCPs were also encouraged to reach out to peers with similar characteristics. The local Childcare Resource and Referral, a U.S. entity that supports family child care practice, used flyers and emails to invite FCCPs with interest in research studies to participate in a study focusing broadly on heart health. FCCPs received a token remuneration valued at $40.

Consent forms for parents and FCCPs were mailed to family child care homes prior to assessment visits. Participating FCCPs passed informational flyers to parents of children in their care that fell within our age range. Interested parents either contacted the research team for information and/or filled out the consent form attached to the flyer. All preschool aged children with parental consent were included in this study. For the convenience of the FCCPs and children, all assessments were conducted at each FCCP’s setting during normal daily operations.

A total of 15 consenting parents did not give consent for video recording, so these assessments were coded on-site. In such cases, a trained second investigator conducted the TGMD-2 assessment allowing the first investigator to code. FCCPs completed demographic questionnaires, an adapted version of the pictorial scale of PMSC, and other survey measures related to the overall health profile of the FCCPs and the children as part of a larger study of which methods are described elsewhere (Figueroa and Wiley 2016).

Data Analysis

Raw scores were used in data analyses. Descriptive statistics were performed for demographic variables (i.e., age, sex), TGMD-2, and PMSC data. Bivariate correlations were performed to examine the associations between FCCPs’ proxy report of children’s locomotor, object control, and overall motor competence, and the children’s actual locomotor, object control and overall motor competence (p < .05). The strength of association in the correlation matrix are defined as noted by Cohen (1988) for r-value: .10–.29 = weak; .30–.49 = moderate; and > .50 = strong.

To assess the predictive power of FCCPs’ proxy report of preschoolers’ locomotor, object control, and overall motor skill competence, Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression analyses were performed to assess the predictive power of FCCPs’ proxy report of preschoolers’ locomotor, object control, and overall motor skill competence while controlling for age and gender. Each TGMD-2 domain was the outcome variable in each model (locomotor, object control, and overall motor skill competence), and each respective corresponding PMSC domain was the predictor. Statistical software STATA 14 was used to perform all analyses.

Results

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and descriptive TGMD-2 and PMSC data. Findings from the bivariate correlations between FCCPs’ perceptions of preschoolers’ skills as measured by the PMSC and preschoolers’ actual skills as measured by the TGMD-2, indicate that there are weak to moderate significant associations for locomotor, object control, and overall motor skill competence (see Table 2).

Table 1.

Descriptive data and raw scores aggregated by sex (n = 78)

Variables Boys (n = 36)
 Girls (n = 42)
 Total (n = 78)
M SD M SD M SD
Age in years 3.83 .84 3.76 .82 3.79 .82
Provider proxy report locomotor 14.93 6.95 16.04 5.78 15.52 6.34
Provider proxy report object control 15.16 7.18 14.47 5.20 14.79 6.17
Provider proxy report total skill 30.09 13.53 30.52 10.27 30.32 11.83
Child actual locomotor 21.45 17.78 27.52 15.75 24.68 16.90
Child actual object control 23.13 18.98 24.76 14.65 24.00 16.73
Child actual overall motor skill 44.59 35.91 52.28 29.33 48.68 32.60
Open in a new tab

Data are expressed as mean and standard deviation values

Table 2.

Pair-wise correlation matrix between actual and proxy report of motor skill competence (n = 78)

Actual MC Perceived MC
1 2 3
1. Locomotor skills .30*
2. Object control skills .38**
3. Overall motor skills .36**
Open in a new tab

MC refers to motor competence

*

p < .01;

**

p < .001

Table 3 shows the results of the OLS regression models. The FCCPs’ proxy report was statistically associated with preschoolers’ object control skills (β = . 78, p = .011) and their overall motor skills (β = .72, p = .022), but not the locomotor skills (β = .52, p = .084). FCCPs’ proxy-report of preschoolers’ motor skill competence explained 20.9, and 20.1% of preschoolers’ variance in object control, and overall motor skill competence, respectively after adjusting for biological sex and age (increasing).

Table 3.

Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models for FCCPs’ proxy report of preschoolers’ motor skill competence predicting preschoolers’ actual motor skill competence (n = 78)

Variables α (SE) β (SE) T statistic
p value		 R2
Report on locomotor skills − 2.91 (8.84) .52 (.30) .084 .17
Report on object control skills − 8.53 (8.41) .78 (.30) .011 .21
Report on overall motor skills − 12.74 (16.68) .72 (.31) .022 .20
Open in a new tab

All OLS regression models were adjusted for preschoolers’ age (p < .05 in each model) and sex (p < .05 in each model)

α alpha coefficients, β beta coefficient, SE standard error; R2 R-squared

Discussion

Clark (2017) recently reiterated the importance of motor skill competence and its foundations in early childhood in her “pentimento” of motor development as a field of study. This paper continues the pursuit of better understanding of motor development in childhood populations by focusing on early childhood education settings where many children spend much of their time. To our knowledge, this is the first study assessing FCCPs’ ability to assess motor skill competence among typically developing preschoolers in the United States. We initially found weak to moderate significant correlations between FCCPs’ proxy report of preschoolers’ motor skill competence and children’s actual motor skill competence in each domain. When we adjusted for relevant factors (i.e., children’s age and sex), FCCPs were able to meaningfully report on preschoolers’ total motor skill competence and their object control skill, but not their locomotor skill. This may indicate that object control skills may be easier to assess than locomotor skills by FCCPs. Nevertheless, findings support our hypothesis that FCCPs could be valuable sources of information regarding certain types of motor skills.

Our results appear to reflect relevant literature, in that other studies that have used correlation techniques have also found weak to moderate significant correlations between adults’ proxy report (i.e., parents, classroom teachers, PE teachers) and children’s motor skill competence (Cueto et al. 2017; Estevan et al. 2018; Lalor et al. 2016; Liong et al. 2015). Among parents, Liong et al. (2015) found weak to moderate correlations between parents’ perceptions and children’s motor skills (r = .33–.45), and greater associations between object control and overall motor competence compared to locomotor, which support our findings. Studies that include both parents’ and teachers’ proxy report have also found weak to moderate associations with children motor skills. In the recent study of Estevan et al. (2018) in Spanish children, which used the same instruments as the current study, weak to moderate associations were found for parents (r = .17–.41) and PE teachers (r = .35–.59). Lalor et al. (2016) in Australian children also found similar trends across various measures of parents’ and teachers’ proxy report and children’s motor competence. In relation to object control skills compared with locomotion, Estevan and colleagues found significant associations between PE teachers’ and parents’ report on children’s actual object control skills, but PE teachers had more limitations judging locomotion. The study by Lalor and colleagues, found no significant correlations between self-report and a battery of fine motor skills, but better compatibility (significant correlations) of some reports on gross motor skills with relation to children’s actual gross motor skills.

When examining only the studies that used regression analysis and adjusted for relevant confounders, our results seem to align with two studies assessing the predictive power of adults’ proxy report to explain child motor competence. Liong et al. (2015) found that parent report significantly predicted children’s actual overall movement skill, explaining approximately 48% of the adjusted variance (Liong et al. 2015). Similarly, Estevan et al. (2018) found moderate to strong evidence of both parents’ and teachers’ proxy reports on motor skill competence across all domains (locomotor, object control, overall motor skill competence). In contrast, a study by Lalor and colleagues found that teacher and parent’s report were not predictive of children’s actual skill; with the exception of children’s manual coordination (Lalor et al. 2016).

These previous studies show teachers may have a slight edge in predicting children’s actual motor skill ability (Lalor et al. 2016; Kramer et al. 2009a, b). Teachers are in charge of multiple children at the same time, and therefore, may be better versed than parents in understanding children’s motor activity (Ruiz-Pérez and Sanz-Graupera 2005). The teachers that participated in these previous studies were PE teachers not classroom teachers. PE teachers may be one of the most knowledgeable adults in terms of judging children’s motor skill competence. Considering FCCPs are not trained as teachers, let alone PE teachers, they still showed some ability to report on children’s motor competence. This warrants continued efforts to further understand FCCPs potential role in assessing preschoolers’ motor skills so that additional opportunities are provided for motor skill development in children.

The main strength of this study is the novelty in investigating the ability of FCCPs to report on the motor skill of children in family child care setting. The study was limited in terms of the relatively small convenience sample compared to other similar studies (Liong et al. 2015). Furthermore, although the TGMD-2 is considered a gold-standard assessment of process-oriented motor skills (i.e., how the skill is performed as opposed to the skill outcome), family child care settings may not offer adequate space to conduct the battery as efficiently as in other early childhood contexts. As such, adjustment to the environment conditions for the TGMD-2 was made (i.e., shortening the run skill performance due to limited space or yard size). It is also important to note that approximately 15% of data had to be live coded, which potentially has implications for the reliability of the data, although this was partially mitigated by extensive training and feasibility assessments of TGMD-2 data collection through pilot studies. Live assessment of motor skills requires adequate intra and inter-rater reliability among observers (Barnett et al. 2014). In this study, on-site coding was the only option since it was not possible to obtain ethics permission from all parents for videoing children. In the future, it would be extremely important to adequately document the level of agreement among coders, as this data is critical to minimize potential errors in analyses with TGMD-2 data.

In conclusion, FCCPs appear to be a relevant source of information of preschoolers’ motor skill competence; at least for object control skills. Our results indicate that FCCPs in our study may have a limited perception when judging preschoolers’ locomotion compared to other adults in a child’s life (i.e., PE teachers).

Future studies should reach out to center- or home-based childcare in an effort to examine additional roles of the early childhood environment in promoting motor skill competence among early childhood populations. A recent study indicates that though caregivers and preschool teachers perceive early childhood education contexts to provide good opportunities for motor skill development, staff training reinforcement and parental involvement in preschoolers’ motor skill development is needed in addition to the current educative plans (Roscoe et al. 2017). Given that these caregivers have some ability to identify poor or good motor competence in children in their care, then they could potentially structure appropriate activities to try to ensure adequate development and physical activity opportunities. Gathering information on FCCPs’ education, and their experience with physical activity and PE could make meaningful contributions to future studies in this area.

A next step could involve the development of interventions targeting caregivers in early childhood education contexts, particularly in the underserved family child care setting so FCCPs could offer activities and other opportunities to promote motor skill competence in children under their care. Lastly, FCCPs could also greatly benefit from educational opportunities on children’s locomotor skill development.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the training grant “Illinois Transdisciplinary Obesity Prevention Program (I-TOPP)” funded by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), under Award No. 2011–67001-30101. The lead author is currently supported by the training Grant T32DK007703 from National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Footnotes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Human and Animal Rights All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Contributor Information

Roger Figueroa, Email: rfigueroa@hsph.harvard.edu.

Lisa Barnett, Email: lisa.barnett@deakin.edu.au.

Isaac Estevan, Email: isaac.estevan@uv.es.

Angela R. Wiley, Email: awiley1@auburn.edu.

References

  1. Bandura A (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: MacMillan. [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnett LM, Lai SK, Veldman SL, Hardy LL, Cliff DP, Morgan PJ, et al. (2016a). Correlates of gross motor competence in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 46(11), 1663–1688. 10.1007/s40279-016-0495-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnett LM, Minto C, Lander N, & Hardy LL (2014). Interrater reliability assessment using the Test of Gross Motor Development-2. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 17(6), 667–670. 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.09.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnett LM, Ridgers ND, Zask A, & Salmon J (2015). Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18(1), 98–102. 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barnett LM, Vazou S, Abbott G, Bowe SJ, Robinson LE, Ridgers ND, et al. (2016b). Construct validity of the pictorial scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 294–302. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.09.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown T, & Lalor A (2009). The movement assessment battery for children: Second edition (MABC-2)—A review and critique. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 29(1), 86–103. 10.1080/01942630802574908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cattuzzo MT, dos Santos Henrique R, Re AHN, de Oliveira IS, Melo BM, de Sousa Moura M, et al. (2016). Motor competence and health related physical fitness in youth: A systematic review. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 19(2), 123–129. 10.1016/j.jsams.2014.12.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2012). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES): National Youth Fitness Survey (NYFS) Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2) Procedures Manual. Retrieved November 9, 2014 from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nnyfs/tgmd.pdf.
  9. Clark JE (2017). Pentimento: A 21st century view on the canvas of motor development. Kinesiology Review, 6(3), 232–239. 10.1123/kr.2017-0020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cohen J (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hilsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cronbach LJ (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. 10.1007/bf02310555. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cueto S, Prieto JA, Nistal P, Abelairas-Gómez C, Barcala-Furelos R, & López S (2017). Teachers’ perceptions of preschool children’s psychomotor development in Spain. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 124(4), 725–739. 10.1177/0031512517705534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. D’Hondt E, Deforche B, De Bourdeaudhuij I, & Lenoir M (2009). Relationship between motor skill and body mass index in 5-to 10-year-old children. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 26(1), 21–37. 10.1123/apaq.26.1.21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dyment J, & Coleman B (2012). The intersection of physical activity opportunities and the role of early childhood educators during outdoor play: Perceptions and reality. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(1), 90. [Google Scholar]
  15. Estevan I, Molina-García J, Bowe SJ, Álvarez O, Castillo I, & Barnett LM (2018). Who can best report on children’s motor competence: Parents, teachers, or the children themselves? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 34, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.psychsport.2017.09.002. [Google Scholar]
  16. Figueroa R, & An R (2017). Motor skill competence and physical activity in preschoolers: A review. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 21(1), 136–146. 10.1007/s10995-016-2102-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Figueroa R, & Wiley A (2016). Factors associated with time provided to children for physical activity in family child care: A cross-sectional study. Springer Plus, 5(1), 1730. 10.1186/s40064-016-3450-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2009). America’s children: Key national indicators of well-being 2009. Retrieved January 27, 2014 from http://www.childstats.gov/pdf/ac2009/ac_09.pdf.
  19. Harter S, & Pike R (1984). The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance for young children. Child Development, 5(6), 1969–1982. 10.2307/1129772. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kennedy J, Brown T, & Chien CW (2012). Motor skill assessment of children: Is there an association between performance-based, child-report, and parent-report measures of children’s motor skills? Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 32(2), 196–209. 10.3109/01942638.2011.631101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kit BK, Akinbami LJ, Isfahani NS, & Ulrich DA (2017). Gross motor development in children aged 3–5 years, United States 2012. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 21(7), 1573–1580. 10.1007/s10995-017-2289-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kramer J, Bowyer P, O’Brien J, Kielhofner G, & Maziero-Barbosa V (2009a). How interdisciplinary pediatric practitioners choose assessments. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76(1), 56–64. 10.1177/00084174090760114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kramer JM, Smith EV, & Kielhofner G (2009b). Rating scale use by children with disabilities on a self-report of everyday activities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90(12), 2047–2053. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.apmr.2009.07.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lalor A, Brown T, & Murdolo Y (2016). Relationship between children’s performance-based motor skills and child, parent, and teacher perceptions of children’s motor abilities using self/inform-ant-report questionnaires. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 63(2), 105–116. 10.1111/1440-1630.12253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Liong GH, Ridgers ND, & Barnett LM (2015). Associations between skill perceptions and young children’s actual fundamental movement skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 120(2), 591–603. 10.2466/10.25.pms.120v18×2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Office of Personnel Management. (2016). Childcare resources handbook. Retrieved August 18, 2016 from https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/worklife/reference-materials/child-care-resources-handbook/.
  27. Rivard LM, Missiuna C, Hanna S, & Wishart L (2007). Understanding teachers’ perceptions of the motor difficulties of children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 633–648. 10.1348/000709906X159879. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Robinson LE, Stodden DF, Barnett LM, Lopes VP, Logan SW, Rodrigues LP, et al. (2015). Motor competence and its effect on positive developmental trajectories of health. Sports Medicine, 45(9), 1273–1284. 10.1007/s40279-015-0351-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Roscoe CM, James RS, & Duncan MJ (2017). Preschool staff and parents’ perceptions of preschool children’s physical activity and fundamental movement skills from an area of high deprivation: A qualitative study. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 9(5), 619–635. 10.1080/2159676x.2017.1322630. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Ruiz-Pérez LM, & Sanz-Graupera JL (2005). New measure of perceived motor competence for children ages 4 to 6 years. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 101(1), 131–148. 10.2466/pms.101.1.131-148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Shenouda L, Gabel L, & Timmons BW (2011). Preschooler focus-physical activity and motor skill development. Child Health and Exercise Medicine Program, 1, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  32. Stodden DF, Goodway JD, Langendorfer SJ, Roberton MA, Rudisill ME, Garcia C, et al. (2008). A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship. Quest, 60(2), 290–306. 10.1080/00336297.2008.10483582. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. True L, Pfeiffer KA, Dowda M, Williams HG, Brown WH, O’Neill JR, et al. (2017). Motor competence and characteristics within the preschool environment. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 20(8), 751–755. 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.11.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Ulrich D (2000). Test of gross motor development (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED. [Google Scholar]
  35. U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Who’s minding the kids? Childcare arrangements: Spring 2011. Retrieved February 7, 2014 from https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p70-135.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  36. Wiart L, & Darrah J (2001). Review of four tests of gross motor development. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 43(4), 279–285. 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2001.tb00204.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Wilson BN, Kaplan BJ, Crawford SG, Campbell A, & Dewey D (2000). Reliability and validity of a parent questionnaire on childhood motor skills. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54(5), 484–493. 10.5014/ajot.54.5.484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES