Motor Development of Children and Adolescents Aged 8-16 Years in View of Their Somatic Build and Objective Quality of Life of Their Families

Open access

Motor Development of Children and Adolescents Aged 8-16 Years in View of Their Somatic Build and Objective Quality of Life of Their Families

The differences in human motor development are determined by predispositions and living conditions. The aim of the present study was to examine relationships between motor fitness of children and adolescents aged 8-16 years (277 boys and 247 girls), and their somatic build and quality of life of their families. Body height, body mass and skinfold thickness were measured. On the basis of these measurements body mass index (BMI), Rohrer's index and lean body mass (LBM) were calculated. The subjects' physical fitness was also assessed with motor tests: speed of arm movement (plate tapping), agility (10 × 5 m shuttle run), explosive strength of the legs (standing broad jump), trunk strength (situps), explosive strength of the trunk and shoulder girdle (1-kg medicine ball throw), and flexibility (sit and reach) regarded as a morpho-functional predisposition of motor abilities. The standing broad jump results were then used to calculate maximal anaerobic power (MPA). The examination was completed with a questionnaire survey of the children's parents concerning their families' quality of life. On the basis of the parents' answers to the questionnaire, two quality of life indices were constructed: objective quality of life index and subjective quality of life index. Due to the wide age bracket of subjects the sample was divided into two age groups: 8-12 and 13-16-year-olds. The relationships between subjects' motor development, somatic traits and their families' quality of life were examined with the use of multivariate comparative analysis. The level of motor development of studied children was more strongly determined by their somatic build than the quality of life of their families. The most important somatic determinants of the subjects' motor abilities were body height and subcutaneous adiposity. These determinants primarily affected speed and strength abilities of younger school children. Objective quality of life of children's families determined the development of some strength abilities in children aged 8-12 years. No correlations between the subjects' motor development and subjective quality of life of their families were found.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Borys T Rogala P. Quality of life on local level - an indicators-based study. UNDP Warsaw 2008.

  • Bouchard C Shepard RJ Stephens T. Physical activity fitness and health. Human Kinetics Publishers Champaign 1994.

  • Brett Schneider W Naul R. Study on young people's life style's and sedentariness and the role of sport in the context of education and as a means of restoring the balance. University of Paderborn 2004.

  • Brownson R Eyler A King A et al. Patterns and correlates of physical activity among US women 40 years and older. Am J Public Health 2000; 90: 266-270.

  • Crews D Lochbaum M Landers D. Aerobic physical activity effects on psychological well-being in lowincome Hispanic. Perceptual and motor skills 2004; 319-324.

  • Dittmann J Goebel J. Your house your car your education: the socioeconomic situation of the neighbourhood and its impact of life satisfaction in Germany. Soc Indic Res 2010; 96: 497-513.

  • Drygas W Kwasniewska M Kaleta D et al. Increasing recreational and leisure time physical activity in Poland - how to overcome barriers of inactivity. J Public Health 2008; 16: 31-36.

  • Ekelund U Poortvliet E Nilsson A et al. Physical activity in relation to aerobic fitness and body fat in 14- to 15-year-old boys and girls. Eur J Appl Physiol 2001; 85: 195-201.

  • Giagazoglou P Kyparos A Fotiadou R et al. The effect of residence area and mother's education on motor development of preschool-aged children in Greece. Early Child Development and Care 2007; 177: 479-492.

  • Gültekin T Hauspie R Charles S et al. Growth of children living in the outskirts of Ankara: Impact of low socio-economic status. Ann Hum Biol 2006; 33: 43-54.

  • Ignasiak Z Sławińska T. Morphofunctional development of urban and rural children from Southwestern Poland in a relative approach. Int J Anthropol 1999; 14: 99-113.

  • Ignasiak Z Sławińska T Domaradzki J. The influence of social-economical factors on the morphofunctional growth of children considering the urbanisation factor aspect. Acta Univ Palacki Olomuc Gymn 2002; 32: 29-34.

  • Kemper H DeVente W van Mechelen W et al. Adolescent motor skill performance: is physical activity in adolescence related to adult physical fitness. Am J Human Biol 2001; 13: 180-189.

  • Kimhi A. Socio-economic determinants of health and physical fitness in southern Ethiopia. Econ Hum Biol 2003; 1: 55-75.

  • King A Castro C Wilcox S et al. Personal and environmental factors associated with physical inactivity among different racial-ethnic groups of US middle-aged and older aged adults. Health Psychol 2000; 19: 354-364.

  • Lindgren G Aurelius G Tanner J et al. Socio-economic circumstances and the growth of Stockholm preschool children: the 1980 birth cohort. Acta Paediatr 1994; 83: 1209-1211.

  • Malina RM Eisenmann J Cumming S et al. Maturity-associated variation in the growth and functional capacities of youth football players 13-15 years. Eur J Appl Physiol 2004; 91: 555-562.

  • Mészáros Z Mészáros J Szmodis M Pampakas P Osváth P Völgyi E. Primary school child development - issues of socioeconomic status. Kinesiology 2008; 40: 153-161.

  • Mleczko E. Przebieg i uwarunkowania rozwoju funkcjonalnego dzieci krakowskich między 7 a 14 rokiem życia. AWF Kraków 1991.

  • Mynarski W Garbaciak W Stokłosa H et al. Sprawność fizyczna ukierunkowana na zdrowie (H-RF) populacji Górnego Śląska. AWF Katowice 2007.

  • Mynarski W Rozpara M Czapla K et al. Aerobic capacity of students with different levels of physical activity as assessed by IPAQ. Journal of Human Kinetics 2009; 21: 89-96.

  • Pavón D Ortega F Ruiz J et al. Socioeconomic status influences physical fitness in European adolescents independently of body fat and physical activity: the HELENA study. Nutr Hosp 2010; 25: 311-316.

  • Piko B Keresztes N. Sociodemographic and socioeconomic variations in leisure time physical activity in a sample of Hungarian youth. Int J Public Health 2008; 53: 306-310.

  • Puciato D. Differentiation of somatic and motoric development of children and adolescents in view of assessment of living conditions of their families. Studies and Physical Culture and Tourism 2010a; 3: 231-237.

  • Puciato D. Morpho-functional development of children and adolescents from Jedlina-Zdrój with regard to objective quality of life of their families. Hum Movement 2010b; 11: 66-70.

  • Puciato D. The level of somatic and motoric development in children and adolescents from Jedlina-Zdrój in the aspect of perception of their future by their parents. Pol J Sport Tourism 2010c; 17: 36-45.

  • Rusnak Z Kozyra C. Example of survey research of the students' quality of life. Statistical Review of Lover Silesia and Opole 2001; 6: 7-16.

  • Saavedra J Torres S Caro B et al. Relationship between health-related fitness and educational and income levels in Spanish women. Public Health 2008; 122: 794-800.

  • Seefeldt V Malina R Clark M. Factors affecting levels of physical activity in adults. Sports Med 2002; 32: 143-168.

  • Suchomel A. Somatic parameters of children with low and high levels of motor performance. Kinesiology 2005; 37: 195-203.

  • Suliga E. Socio-economic differentiation of the growth and the dietary intake of Polish boys aged 7-16 years. Ann Hum Biol 2009; 36: 199-210.

  • Veenhoven R. Apparent quality of life in nations. How long and happy people live. Soc Indic Res 2005; 71: 61-86.

  • Venetsanou F Kambas A. Environmental factors affecting preschoolers' motor development. Early Childhood Educ J 2010; 37: 319-327.

  • Welzel Ch Inglehart R. Agency values and well-being. A human development model. Soc Indic Res 2010; 97: 43-63.

Journal information
Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.414
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.858

CiteScore 2018: 1.60

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.644
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.941

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 604 435 11
PDF Downloads 292 216 3