Next Article in Journal
Theory of Mind, Self-Perceptions, and Peer Popularity in Middle Childhood and Early Adolescence
Previous Article in Journal
Sleep-Disordered Breathing and Central Respiratory Control in Children: A Comprehensive Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Children
Volume 12
Issue 3
10.3390/children12030280
children-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Joint Angular Kinematics and Gross Motor Function in Typically Developing Healthy Children

by
Monday Omoniyi Moses
1,*,
Ngozi Florence Onuegbu
1,
Prince De-Gualle Deku
1,
Mary Abena Nyarko
1,
Lydia Boampong Owusu
2,
Abigael Omowumi Emikpe
3,
Emmanuel Babatunde John
4,5,
Rahul Soangra
4,6,
Abiboye Cheduko Yifieyeh
7 and
Nicholas Akinwale Titiloye
8
1
Department of Physiotherapy and Sports Science, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology, Kumasi AK-039, Ghana
2
Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, College of Health Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology, Kumasi AK-039, Ghana
3
Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, College of Health Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology, Kumasi AK-039, Ghana
4
Department of Physical Therapy, Crean College of Health and Behavioral Sciences, Chapman University in Irvine, Irvine, CA 92866, USA
5
Myers School of Nursing and Health Professions, York College of Pennsylvania, York, PA 17403, USA
6
Fowler School of Engineering, Chapman University, Orange, CA 92866, USA
7
Department of Surgery, School of Medicine and Dentistry, College of Health Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology, Kumasi AK-039, Ghana
8
Department of Pathology, School of Medicine and Dentistry, College of Health Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology, Kumasi AK-039, Ghana
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2025, 12(3), 280; https://doi.org/10.3390/children12030280
Submission received: 3 January 2025 / Revised: 14 February 2025 / Accepted: 21 February 2025 / Published: 25 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Pediatric Neurology & Neurodevelopmental Disorders)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Objective: The aim of this study was to establish the interactions between joint angular kinematics and gross motor function in typically developing healthy Ghanaian children. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study design was employed. A total of 150 (69 (46.0%), 3.25 ± 0.08-year-old boys and 81 (54.0%), 3.25 ± 0.06-year-old girls) 2–4-year-old children were recruited. Joint angular kinematic variables [left hip flexion (LHF), left hip extension (LHE), right hip flexion (RHF), left knee flexion (LKF), right hip extension (RHE), left knee extension (LKE), right knee flexion (RKF), left ankle dorsi-flexion (LADF), right knee extension (RKE), right ankle plantar flexion (RAPF), left ankle plantar flexion (LAPF), and right ankle dorsi-flexion (RADF)] and gross motor function (lying and rolling, sitting, crawling and kneeling, standing, and walking, running, and jumping) were measured with standard scales. Results: The correlations between lying and rolling vs. RHE (r = 0.221; p-value < 0.01), LKE (r = −0.267; p-value < 0.01), LAPF (r = 0.264; p-value < 0.01), and RADF (r = 0.240; p-value < 0.01); crawling and kneeling vs. LKE (r = 0.196; p-value < 0.05) and RADF (r = 0.188; p-value < 0.05); and walking, running, and jumping vs. LKE (r = −0.214; p-value < 0.01) and RADF (r = −0.207; p-value < 0.05) were significant. Conclusions: There was a negative correlation between joint angular kinematics and total gross motor function in this sampled population. Typically, developing healthy children should be exposed to a range of motion, flexibility, and active transportation programs for optimal active lifestyles and improvements in gross motor skills.

1. Introduction

Gross motor function involves movements that use large muscles, such as lying, rolling, sitting, crawling, kneeling, standing, walking, running, and jumping [1,2]. Large muscles such as the gluteus medius and gluteus maximus muscles are essential for walking and running, stabilizing the pelvis, and controlling femoral adduction and internal rotation, while diagnosed weakness in these muscles can lead to musculoskeletal disorders [3].
Studies have shown that the gluteus medius stabilizes the pelvis and controls femoral adduction and internal rotation during gait, while the upper gluteus maximus fibers act as a hip external rotator and abductor [4,5,6]. Recent studies affirmed that the control of body movements, such as sitting, crawling, standing, and walking, allows children to move (efficient flexibility and range of motion) around in their surrounding environment efficiently and confidently [7,8,9].
Delays in gross motor development may indicate neurological disorders, and early identification is essential for successful treatments [10,11]. Also, gross motor function has been reported as important for figuring out kinematic and kinetic changes in growing children who have been diagnosed with a disorder [11,12,13]. In children with diseases like cerebral palsy, deficits in gross motor function influence movement and inform therapies to improve their quality of life [14].
Joint angular kinematics (JAK) has been explained as the study of the motion of joints concerning their angular displacement, velocity, and acceleration, without considering the forces that cause their motion [15]. JAK is seen as a fundamental aspect of biomechanics, providing critical insights into human movement, injury prevention, rehabilitation, and sports performance [15,16]. Therefore, contemporary research on the relationship between joint angular kinematics and gross motor function has focused on children with pathological disorders [17,18,19], with limited attention given to typically developing healthy children. It has been established that typically developing healthy children are often characterized by optimal presentations of physical, mental, intellectual, social, and emotional attributes [20,21,22,23].
The World Health Organization opined that children aged one to four years old experience rapid physical, cognitive, and emotional development [24]. Studying children within these age groups provides valuable insights into their early motor skill acquisition, including walking, running, and coordination [25,26]; cognitive and language development, which are foundational for later learning [27]; and social and emotional behaviors, as children begin forming attachments and emotional regulation patterns [28].
To ensure efficient development of interest in activities that use large muscles in typically developing healthy children, understanding joint angular kinematics (range of motion and flexibility) is inevitable. Passive range of motion in the lower limbs is a critical parameter for the diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal and neurological problems in children [29,30].
Previous studies have reiterated that the fundamental movement phase of motor development focuses on mastering the mechanics of skills that prepare children for the specialized movement phase of motor development, like cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength, and flexibility [16,31,32]. Although the interaction between joint angular kinematics and gross motor function among children in developing countries is seldom examined, to date, and to the best of the knowledge of the authors, there are limited studies on Ghanaian children. Giving specific attention to typically developing healthy Ghanaian children is essential to establish normative data for joint motion in different age groups; assess movement efficiency and postural control; and provide reference values for clinical and rehabilitative applications [33,34,35,36]. Furthermore, factors such as anthropometric differences (limb length, body mass, and muscle distribution), cultural variations in motor skill acquisition (e.g., play patterns and environmental influences), and nutritional and health status, which can affect motor performance, necessitate specific research in this population. Therefore, the objective of this study was to establish the interactions between joint angular kinematics and gross motor function in typically developing healthy children.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This descriptive cross-sectional design study is part of comprehensive research on the sensor gait assessment and clinical gait parameters of typically developing Ghanaian children. The descriptive cross-sectional design uses data from participants at one moment to represent the population under investigation. The cross-sectional approach is particularly advantageous for assessing the prevalence of a phenomenon, characteristics of a population, or associations between variables within a defined timeframe [24]. This design facilitates the collection of data from a representative sample, allowing for broad generalizability while maintaining efficiency in terms of time and resources [25].
Moreover, as a subset of a broader research project, this cross-sectional study serves as a foundational component in generating baseline data that may inform further longitudinal or experimental inquiries [26]. Given its descriptive nature, this design does not establish causality but is instrumental in identifying patterns, trends, and potential relationships between key variables [27].
To ensure the children were representative of the population, random sampling was utilized. To analyze the descriptive cross-sectional research data obtained, frequency distributions, means, and standard deviations were used [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36].

2.2. Participants

The sampled population was non-probabilistic, chosen for convenience, and subject to the parents’ acceptance to release their children to participate in this study. For the validity of this study, the sample size was calculated based on repeated measures, with factors having a medium effect size (Cohen’s f) of 0.3 and a power of 0.95, using G*Power 3.1.9.4. A total sample of 134 participants was required, with an additional 14.9% attrition rate (n = 20) included. However, a total of 150 (69 (46.0%), 3.25 ± 0.08-year-old boys and 81 (54.0%), 3.25 ± 0.06-year-old girls) from pre-primary schools fulfilled all the inclusion criteria and participated in this study.
The inclusion criteria were as follows: participants between the ages of 0 and 4, not living with any disability, and free from any diagnosed acute or chronic illnesses, including cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, asthma, and epilepsy, were included. Those with prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal complications and congenital birth defects were excluded. An introductory letter of intent with the objectives of this study was sent to more than fifty schools in Kumasi, the Ashanti region. After six months, few schools showed interest. All participants between the ages of 2 and 4 years were relatively healthy children who were assumed to be the eyes of the family very early in life and would be able to assist family members in household activities and taking care of each other [37] and had no reported history of neurological or motor impairments. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (our ref.: CHRPE/AP/398/23). All participants, through class teachers, school heads, and parents, signed written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.3. Procedures and Instruments

Height and weight were measured with a WB-3000 digital stadiometer (Tanita, Tokyo, Japan), and the waist-to-hip ratio was calculated based on the circumferences of the waist and hip obtained through a non-elastic tape measure. Body mass index (BMI) was measured and recorded using a Tanita body composition analyzer (RD-953 model). The validity of the instrument to display reliable body mass indexes in preschool children has been well documented [38,39,40,41]. The angular kinematic variables (passive range of motion of the joints in the lower limbs) were measured using a 360° goniometer (Sunnyguli brand, Wenzhou, China, with a UPC of 798008035758) and recorded. The gross motor level of each participating child was measured using the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66 & GMFM-88) User’s Manual [41]. The GMFM-88 is divided into five dimensions: lying and rolling (4 items), sitting (15 items), crawling and kneeling (10 items), standing (13 items), and walking, running, and jumping (24 items) [41,42,43]. Using the GMFM-88, the children were assessed based on five dimensions (lying and rolling; sitting; crawling and kneeling; standing; and walking, running, and jumping) [41,42,44,45]. Each dimension was scored on a scale ranging from 0 to 3 (0 = does not initiate; 1 = initiates; 2 = partially completes; and 3 = completes) and a score of “NT” for items that were not tested. The goal score percentage for each dimension as well as the total score percentage was computed and documented at the end of each assessment [41]. The scientific reliability and utilization of the GMFM-88 have attracted the attention of researchers, especially among children with pathological and musculoskeletal disorders [43,46,47].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The data normality was examined using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test before exploring the interaction between results between the angular kinematic and gross motor function parameters. The collected data were entered into Microsoft Excel and exported to IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 27.0, Chicago, IL, USA, for analysis. Descriptive analysis was used to represent the data as means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentiles (Table 1). Pearson’s moment correlation coefficient was analyzed to determine the interaction between the angular kinematic and gross motor function variables (Table 2), and independent t-tests were used to determine gender differences between the angular kinematic and gross motor function parameters (Table 3). The confidence level was set at 95%.

3. Results

The demographic characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 1. The mean age shows that the majority of the children were below three years, while fifty-four were female and in the <50th body fat percentile.
The results from Table 2 based on the intervariable PPMC correlation show that there was a significant intercorrelation between RKE and RKF (r = 0.338; p < 0.05), RADF and RHE (r = −0.227; p < 0.05), RADF and RKE (r = 0.188; p < 0.05), RAPF and RHE (r = 0.217; p < 0.05), RAPF and RADF (r = −0.322; p < 0.05), LHF and RHF (r = 0.721; p < 0.05), LHF and RHE (r = 0.03; p < 0.05), LHE and RHE (r = 0.749; p < 0.05), LHE and RKE (r = 0.351; p < 0.05), LHE and RADF (r = −0.198; p < 0.05), LHE and RAPF (r = 0.308; p < 0.05), LKF and RKF (r = 0.859; p < 0.05), LKF and RKE (r = 0.831; p < 0.05), LKE and RKF (r = 0.421; p < 0.05), LKE and RKE (r = −0.180; p < 0.05), GMFM total% and RKE (r = −0.184; p < 0.05), GMFM E% and LAPF (r = −0.207; p < 0.05), and GMFM E% and RAPF (r = −0.214; p < 0.05). There was a significant positive correlation between the percentages of all GMFM variables and the GMFM total (p < 0.05) at a 95% confidence interval. Table 3 reveals that there was no significant difference between males and females at a 95% confidence interval in all the variables measured except height.

4. Discussion

This study established the interactions between angular kinematics and gross motor function in typically developing healthy children. Based on the findings, 54.0% (Table 1) of the children had a less than 50th body fat percentile rank without a significant gender difference in BMI (Table 3). This finding highlights that the participants were not at cardiovascular risk based on their body fat percentile and BMI, irrespective of gender affiliation, as postulated in [48]. The body fat levels support the suggestion that BMI values may not differ substantially between boys and girls within this sample [49]. This consistency could also be used to inform or refine standards in pediatric growth charts and health screening tools [50,51]. Clinically, children with body fat below the 50th percentile may have a lower risk of certain metabolic diseases [48], given the assumption that higher body fat often increases the risk of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and other metabolic disorders [14].
Based on Table 2, the findings from the current study show that the correlation between joint angular kinematics and total gross motor function in healthy children in the sampled population was negatively oriented, although positive with subdivisions. The implications of the negative correlation could indicate that elevated or more intricate angular kinematic metrics (e.g., specific joint angles or movement patterns) may not directly correspond to enhanced overall gross motor function in this demographic [52,53,54]. This could also mean that increased or decreased flexibility may or may not be responsible for a better quality of running, walking, jogging, and jumping because greater flexibility can enhance joint mobility, allowing for a more extensive stride length in running and jumping, improve overall efficiency, and reduce the risk of injury [55]. Nonetheless, the positive association across subdivisions of function may suggest that some subsets of gross motor abilities (walking, running, and jumping) are truly improved by specific angular kinematic attributes [56,57]. It has been indicated that more flexible muscles and tendons can absorb impact forces more effectively, reducing stress on joints and potentially improving movement mechanics [30,58].
Specifically, the correlation analysis in this study revealed that left and right hip flexion correlated negatively, though not significantly, with gross motor functions. This could indicate the presence of muscle imbalances, compensations, and restricted mobility in other muscle groups or joints, as suggested in [59]. This finding indicates the importance of joint kinematic evaluation to adopt one of five distinctive gait forms or skills: walking, running, galloping, hopping, and skipping [34,35] and the development of fundamental motor skills [60] as well as stability in children.
Additionally, it could lead to compromised movements, potentially affecting tasks such as walking, running, and an active lifestyle [61,62]. Furthermore, the correlation between left and right hip extension and gross motor function was also non-significantly negative. This negative correlation in this subdivision could indicate atypical neuromuscular development [63], although these findings are among relatively healthy children without diagnosed developmental conditions. Since overall gross motor function may not improve with general angular kinematics, researchers believe clinicians could focus on specific motor skills (lying and rolling, sitting, crawling and kneeling, and walking, running, and jumping) that correlate positively with kinematic variables [43,64,65]. It has been suggested that this approach could refine interventions to enhance targeted functions rather than global gross motor abilities [9]. Biomechanical, neuromuscular, or compensatory mechanisms may influence gross motor function more than hip flexion alone. While hip flexion may play a role in movement patterns, its direct contribution to gross motor function is uncertain, and other kinematic or kinetic factors may be more influential [33,35,58].
Another correlation result obtained revealed that left knee flexion correlated negatively with lying and rolling, sitting, crawling and kneeling, and standing, as well as positively with walking, running, and jumping. This finding suggests that limitations in basic developmental motor activities, like lying, rolling, sitting, crawling, kneeling, and standing, are associated with decreased left knee flexion or a restricted range of motion in knee flexion [63,64,65]. However, there has been an argument suggesting that an increase in knee flexion correlates positively with more dynamic activities like walking, running, and jumping [66,67].
One other major finding of this study was the significant and negative correlations observed between left knee extension and lying and rolling, as well as walking, running, and jumping, followed by a significant positive correlation with crawling and kneeling. The negative correlations between knee extension and lying, rolling, walking, running, and jumping may be explained by functional interpretation [68,69], where reduced knee extension (or decreased ability to fully extend the knee) may negatively impact movements that involve upright, weight-bearing activities and dynamic motions like walking, running, and jumping [66,70,71]. Growing evidence suggests that knee extension is crucial for efficient movement mechanics and stability in children, and any limitation could hinder their ability to perform motor skills tasks smoothly and safely [72,73]. However, there was no significant correlation between right knee extension and gross motor function.
The current study revealed that right ankle dorsi-flexion correlated significantly with lying and rolling, crawling and kneeling, and walking, running, and jumping, while left ankle plantar flexion correlated significantly with lying and rolling. This pattern supports earlier findings, which suggest that different ankle movements, such as dorsi-flexion and plantar flexion are linked to various functional movements, like lying and rolling, crawling and kneeling, and walking, running, and jumping, at different developmental stages of motor activities in children [54,74,75].
Gender-wise, Table 3 shows that there was no significant difference between the variables measured in the sample population, as previously reported [76,77]. This suggests the children shared similar growth patterns with the socio-cultural environment because growth patterns, including height, weight, and muscle mass development, influence the ability of children to perform gross motor tasks, such as walking, running, jumping, and balance. Studies indicate that children with similar growth trajectories often have comparable neuromuscular coordination and postural control, leading to similar motor development milestones [78,79]. The WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study [80] found that across different countries, children raised in similar socio-economic and nutritional conditions displayed similar motor milestone timelines. Malina and Bouchard [81] also demonstrated that children from similar ethnic and socio-cultural backgrounds had parallel motor skill progressions, even when raised in different geographic locations. The literature has shown that cultural differences in infant handling (e.g., swaddling vs. free movement) influence postural control and early gross motor milestones [82,83]. This result provides a benchmark for clinicians evaluating children with motor impairments and suggests that in healthy children, normal variations in joint angles or motion patterns (angular kinematics) do not significantly impact their gross motor function.
The limitations of this study include that it was carried out in non-clinical settings on relatively healthy children. Although the sample was a vulnerable population, the sample size for this study may not have been sufficient to be a very good representative population. However, the G*Power software was used to ensure the sample was at least sufficient for this study.

5. Conclusions

There was a negative correlation between joint angular kinematics and total gross motor function in this sampled population. Also, there were significant negative correlations between left knee extension and lying and rolling, as well as walking, running, and jumping, followed by significant positive correlations with crawling and kneeling. Furthermore, right ankle dorsi-flexion correlated significantly with lying and rolling, crawling and kneeling, and walking, running, and jumping, while left ankle plantar flexion correlated significantly with lying and rolling. It is recommended that typically developing healthy children should be exposed to a range of motion, flexibility, and active transportation programs for optimal active lifestyles and improvements in gross motor skills.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.O.M. and N.F.O.; methodology, M.O.M., N.F.O., P.D.-G.D., M.A.N., L.B.O., A.O.E., E.B.J., R.S., A.C.Y. and N.A.T.; software, N.F.O., E.B.J. and R.S.; validation, M.O.M., N.F.O., P.D.-G.D., M.A.N., L.B.O., A.O.E., E.B.J., R.S., A.C.Y. and N.A.T.; formal analysis, M.O.M., N.F.O., P.D.-G.D., M.A.N., E.B.J. and R.S.; investigation, M.O.M., N.F.O., P.D.-G.D., M.A.N., L.B.O., A.O.E., E.B.J., R.S., A.C.Y. and N.A.T.; resources, M.O.M., N.F.O., P.D.-G.D., M.A.N., L.B.O., A.O.E., E.B.J., R.S., A.C.Y. and N.A.T.; data curation, M.O.M., N.F.O., P.D.-G.D., M.A.N., L.B.O., A.O.E., E.B.J., R.S., A.C.Y. and N.A.T.; writing—original draft preparation, P.D.-G.D., M.A.N., L.B.O. and A.O.E.; writing—review and editing, M.O.M., N.F.O., E.B.J., R.S., A.C.Y. and N.A.T.; supervision, M.O.M., N.F.O., E.B.J., R.S., A.C.Y. and N.A.T.; project administration, M.O.M., N.F.O., P.D.-G.D., M.A.N., L.B.O. and A.O.E.; funding acquisition, M.O.M., N.F.O., E.B.J., R.S., A.C.Y. and N.A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study received financial support from the seventh KReF research grant provided by the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. This research was partially funded by the “Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, grant number 1R15HD110941-01” at the National Institute of Health, and the APC was funded by this grant.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (our ref.: CHRPE/AP/398/23). All participants, through class teachers, school heads, and parents, gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The approval date was 2 June 2023.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the management of the schools used and the parents of the children who were involved in this study. Written informed consent for publication was obtained from the parents of the children identified. Written informed consent was obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available upon request. The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to privacy, legal and ethical reasons.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the seventh KReF research grant provided by the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology to the first author and his team. We express our gratitude to the children, parents, and families who participated in this research as well as the management and teachers of all the primary schools used in this study, especially the KNUST Basic School and Bethelinter Academy for their cooperation. The authors extend our unreserved appreciation to Robert Jnr Kwofie, Andrews Asuo, Amoah Derrick, Kadmiel Gaglo, Mekayla Amartey, Danquah Priscilla, Nuhu Anshawu, Benedicta Obengwaa Larbi, Erica Yayra Senyo, Matthew Ortis Yartey, Kusi Fremah Julia, Oti Veronica Otenewaa, Raymond Amoako, Asare-Akuffo Denelle, Ofori Samuel, Freda Kodua, Eva Kanzoni, Safowaa Yaa, Emmanuella Agbewu, Elsie Amponsah Adomako, Prince Taxa, Kingsley Ayivi, Edmund Kwarteng Baah, Akua Brewu, Elton Chris Meschak, Benjamin Yeboah, and Joshua Senyabour for their unwavering dedication to the data collection for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations were used in this manuscript:
BMIBody mass index
LHF (°)Left hip flexion
WHR-Waist-to-hip ratio
LHE (°)Left hip extension
RHF (°)Right hip flexion
LKF (°)Left knee flexion
RHE (°)Right hip extension
LKE (°)Left knee extension
RKF (°)Right knee flexion
LADF (°)Left ankle dorsi-flexion
RKE (°)Right knee extension
RAPF (°)Right ankle plantar flexion
LAPF (°)Left ankle plantar flexion
RADF (°)Right ankle dorsi-flexion
GMFM A%(Lying and rolling) total dimension in A ÷ 51 × 100
GMFM B%(Sitting) total dimension in B ÷ 60 × 100
GMFM C%(Crawling and kneeling) total dimensions in c ÷ 42 × 100
GMFM D%(Standing) total dimensions in D ÷ 39 × 100
GMFM E%(Walking, running, and jumping) total dimensions in E ÷ 72 × 100
GMFM total%(A% + B% + C% + D% + E%) ÷ 5

References

  1. Brito-Suárez, J.M.; Camacho-Juárez, F.; Sánchez-Medina, C.M.; Hernández-Pliego, G.; Gutiérrez-Camacho, C. Gross motor disorders in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and survivors: A systematic review. Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. 2022, 39, 658–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Abd El-Hady, S.S.; Abd El-Azim, F.H.; El-Talawy, H.A.E.A.M. Correlation between cognitive function, gross motor skills and health—Related quality of life in children with Down syndrome. Egypt. J. Med. Hum. Genet. 2018, 19, 97–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Baik, S.-M.; Cynn, H.-S.; Shim, J.-H.; Lee, J.-H.; Shin, A.-R.; Lee, K.-E. Effects of Log-Rolling Position on Hip-Abductor Muscle Activation During Side-Lying Hip-Abduction Exercise in Participants with Gluteus Medius Weakness. J. Athl. Train. 2021, 56, 945–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hammond, K.E.; Kneer, L.; Cicinelli, P. Rehabilitation of Soft Tissue Injuries of the Hip and Pelvis. Clin. Sports Med. 2021, 40, 409–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Sirico, F.; Palermi, S.; Massa, B.; Corrado, B. Tendinopathies of the hip and pelvis in athletes: A narrative review. J. Hum. Sports Exerc. 2020, 15, S748–S762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Parcells, B.W. Pediatric Hip and Pelvis. Pediatr. Clin. N. Am. 2020, 67, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Jinhua, L.; Lijin, Z. Motor Development. In The ECPH Encyclopedia of Psychology [Internet]; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2024; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cuesta-Gómez, A.; Fernández-González, P.; Carratalá-Tejada, M.; Aguilar-Bejines, I. Differences in Motor Development between Preterm Infants and Full-Term Preschool Children. Children 2024, 11, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Seamon, B.A.; Sears, C.L.; Anderson, E.; Velozo, C.A. Defining a universal measurement unit and scale for gross motor development. Front. Rehabil. Sci. 2024, 5, 1243336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hadders-Algra, M. Early diagnostics and early intervention in neurodevelopmental disorders—Age-dependent challenges and opportunities. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Walsh, K. The Investigation of Social Competency as Related to Gross Motor Skills in Children with Developmental Delays [Internet]. [Canada]: McGill University. 2010. Available online: https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/xw42n824x (accessed on 31 October 2024).
  12. Schwartz, M.H.; Rozumalski, A.; Trost, J.P. The effect of walking speed on the gait of typically developing children. J. Biomech. 2008, 41, 1639–1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cardoso, M.R.; Armstrong, D.P.; Fischer, S.L.; Albert, W.J. Differential effects of sex on upper body kinematics and kinetics during fatiguing, Asymmetric lifting. Appl. Ergon. 2023, 116, 104203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Jackman, M.; Sakzewski, L.; Morgan, C.; Boyd, R.N.; Brennan, S.E.; Langdon, K.; Toovey, R.A.M.; Greaves, S.; Thorley, M.; Novak, I. Interventions to improve physical function for children and young people with cerebral palsy: International clinical practice guideline. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2021, 64, 536–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Winter, D.A. Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement, 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  16. Thamm, A. Improving Gait in Cerebral Palsy Effects of a Combined Strength, Flexibility and Gait Training Intervention on Lower Limb Gait Kinematics and Kinetics in Children and Young Adults with Spastic Cerebral Palsy. Master’s Thesis in Biomechnics, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  17. Louey, M.G.Y.; Harvey, A.; Passmore, E.; Grayden, D.; Sangeux, M. Kinematic upper limb analysis outperforms electromyography at grading the severity of dystonia in children with cerebral palsy. Clin. Biomech. 2024, 117, 106295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Homayounpour, M.; Gomez, N.G.; Vasavada, A.N.; Merryweather, A.S. The role of neck muscle co-contraction and postural changes in head kinematics after safe head impacts: Investigation of head/neck injury reduction. J. Biomech. 2021, 128, 110732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Hajihosseinali, M.; Behzadipour, S.; Taghizadeh, G.; Farahmand, F. Direction-dependency of the kinematic indices in upper extremities motor assessment of stroke patients. Med. Eng. Phys. 2022, 108, 103880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Park, M.; Budisavljević, S.; Alemán-Díaz, A.Y.; Carai, S.; Schwarz, K.; Kuttumuratova, A.; Jobe, L.B.; Hülsen, V.; Lee, Y.E.; Scott, E.; et al. Child and adolescent health in Europe: Towards meeting the 2030 agenda. J. Glob. Health 2023, 13, 04011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Alhusaini, A.A. A Review of the Literature on Physical Activity, Screen Time, and Sedentary Behavior of Typically Developing Healthy Children in Saudi Arabia. Crit. Rev. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2021, 33, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Perrin, J.M.; Lu, M.C.; Geller, A.; DeVoe, J.E. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Acad. Pediatr. 2019, 20, 160–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cebotari, V.; Mazzucato, V.; Siegel, M. Child Development and Migrant Transnationalism: The Health of Children Who Stay Behind in Ghana and Nigeria. J. Dev. Stud. 2016, 53, 444–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. De Onis, M.; Onyango, A.W.; Borghi, E.; Siyam, A.; Nishida, C.; Siekmann, J. Development of a WHO growth reference for school-aged children and adolescents. Bull. World Health Organ. 2007, 85, 660–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Adolph, K.E.; Hoch, J.E. Motor development: Embodied, embedded, enculturated, and enabling. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2019, 70, 141–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Thelen, E. Timing and developmental dynamics in the acquisition of early motor skills. In Developmental Time and Timing, 1st ed.; Turkewitz, G., Devenny, D.A., Eds.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 85–104. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hoff, E. Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-SES and language minority homes: Implications for closing achievement gaps. Dev. Psychol. 2013, 49, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Thompson, R.A. Early attachment and later development: Reframing the questions. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications, 3rd ed.; Cassidy, J., Shaver, P.R., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wu, Y.-N.; Hwang, M.; Ren, Y.; Gaebler-Spira, D.; Zhang, L.-Q. Combined passive stretching and active movement rehabilitation of lower-limb impairments in children with cerebral palsy using a portable robot. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair 2011, 25, 378–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Whitall, J. Development of locomotor co-ordination and control in children. In Development of Movement Coordination in Children: Applications in the Field of Ergonomics, Health Sciences and Sport, 1st ed.; Savelsbergh, G., Davids, K., Van der Kamp, J., Bennett, S.J., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013; Chapter 16; pp. 251–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Reeves, L.; Broeder, C.E.; Kennedy-Honeycutt, L.; Matney, L. Relationship of Fitness and Gross Motor Skills For Five- to Six-Yr.-Old Children. Percept. Orz. Mofor Ski. 1999, 89, 739–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Valadão, P.; Piitulainen, H.; Haapala, E.A.; Parviainen, T.; Avela, J.; Finni, T. Exercise intervention protocol in children and young adults with cerebral palsy: The effects of strength, flexibility and gait training on physical performance, neuromuscular mechanisms and cardiometabolic risk factors (EXECP). BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2021, 13, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ito, T.; Ito, Y.; Nakai, A.; Sugiura, H.; Noritake, K.; Kidokoro, H.; Natsume, J.; Ochi, N. Bilateral asymmetry in the gait deviation index in school-aged children with the trait of developmental coordination disorder. Gait Posture 2021, 88, 174–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Armand, S.; Decoulon, G.; Bonnefoy-Mazure, A. Gait analysis in children with cerebral palsy. EFORT Open Rev. 2016, 1, 448–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Baker, R.; McGinley, J.L.; Schwartz, M.H.; Beynon, S.; Rozumalski, A.; Graham, H.K.; Tirosh, O. The Gait Profile Score and Movement Analysis Profile. Gait Posture 2009, 30, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Schwartz, M.H.; Rozumalski, A. The gait deviation index: A new comprehensive index of gait pathology. Gait Posture 2008, 28, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Ettinger, A.S. Children’s Health, the Nation’s Wealth: Assessing and Improving Child Health. Environ. Health Perspect. 2004, 112, A844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Louie, L.; Chan, L. The use of pedometry to evaluate the physical activity levels among preschool children in Hong Kong. Early Child Dev. Care 2003, 173, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nyström, C.D.; Henriksson, P.; Alexandrou, C.; Löf, M. The Tanita SC-240 to assess body composition in pre-school children: An evaluation against the three component model. Nutrients 2016, 8, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gutiérrez-Marín, D.; Escribano, J.; Closa-Monasterolo, R.; Ferré, N.; Venables, M.; Singh, P.; Wells, J.C.; Muñoz-Hernando, J.; Zaragoza-Jordana, M.; Gispert-Llauradó, M.; et al. Validation of bioelectrical impedance analysis for body composition assessment in children with obesity aged 8-14y. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 40, 4132–4139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Russell, D.J.; Rosenbaum, P.; Wright, M.; Avery, L.M. Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66 & GMFM-88) Users Manual, 3rd ed.; Mac Keith Press: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  42. Te Velde, A.; Morgan, C. Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66 & GMFM-88) User’s Manual, 3rd ed. Book Review. Pediatr. Phys. Ther. 2022, 34, 88–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Salavati, M.; Rameckers, E.; Waninge, A.; Krijnen, W.; Steenbergen, B.; van der Schans, C. Gross motor function in children with spastic Cerebral Palsy and Cerebral Visual Impairment: A comparison between outcomes of the original and the Cerebral Visual Impairment adapted Gross Motor Function Measure-88 (GMFM-88-CVI). Res. Dev. Disabil. 2017, 60, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Mongold, S.J.; Georgiev, C.; Legrand, T.; Bourguignon, M. Afferents to Action: Cortical Proprioceptive Processing Assessed with Corticokinematic Coherence Specifically Relates to Gross Motor Skills. Eneuro 2023, 11, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Palisano, R.J.; Rosenbaum, P.; Bartlett, D.; Livingston, M.H. Content validity of the expanded and revised Gross Motor Function Classification System. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2008, 50, 744–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gavazzi, F.; Patel, V.; Charsar, B.; Glanzman, A.; Erler, J.; Sevagamoorthy, A.; McKenzie, E.; Kornafel, T.; Ballance, E.; Pierce, S.R.; et al. Gross Motor Function in Pediatric Onset TUBB4A-Related Leukodystrophy: GMFM-88 Performance and Validation of GMFC-MLD in TUBB4A. J. Child Neurol. 2023, 38, 498–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. CanChild. The GMFM-88 and GMFM-Institute for Applied Health Sciences; McMaster University: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  48. Chung, S.T.; Onuzuruike, A.U.; Magge, S.N. Cardiometabolic Risk in Obese Children; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Volume 1411. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ma, F.-F.; Luo, D.-M. Relationships between physical activity, fundamental motor skills, and body mass index in preschool children. Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1094168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ozturk, A.; Tartar, A.; Huseyinsinoglu, B.E.; Ertas, A.H. A clinically feasible kinematic assessment method of upper extremity motor function impairment after stroke. Measurement 2016, 80, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Guimarães, E.; Baxter-Jones, A.; Maia, J.; Fonseca, P.; Santos, A.; Santos, E.; Tavares, F.; Janeira, M.A. The Roles of Growth, Maturation, Physical Fitness, and Technical Skills on Selection for a Portuguese Under-14 Years Basketball Team. Sports 2019, 7, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Bechet, R.; Tisserand, R.; Fradet, L.; Colloud, F. Evidence of invariant lower-limb kinematics in anticipation of ground contact during drop-landing and drop-jumping. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2024, 98, 103297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Carcreff, L.; Moulin, C.; Mariani, B.; Armand, S. Simple rule to automatically recognize the orientation of the sagittal plane foot angular velocity for gait analysis using IMUs on the feet of individuals with heterogeneous motor disabilities. J. Biomech. 2022, 135, 111055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ugbolue, U.C.; Robson, C.; Donald, E.; Speirs, K.L.; Dutheil, F.; Baker, J.S.; Dias, T.; Gu, Y. Joint Angle, Range of Motion, Force, and Moment Assessment: Responses of the Lower Limb to Ankle Plantarflexion and Dorsiflexion. Appl. Bionics Biomech. 2021, 2021, 1232468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Behm, D.G.; Chaouachi, A. A review of the acute effects of static and dynamic stretching on performance. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2011, 111, 2633–2651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Piscitelli, D.; Ferrarello, F.; Ugolini, A.; Verola, S.; Pellicciari, L. Measurement properties of the Gross Motor Function Classification System, Gross Motor Function Classification System-Expanded & Revised, Manual Ability Classification System, and Communication Function Classification System in cerebral palsy: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2021, 63, 1251–1261. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  57. Scherff, E.; Schnell, S.E.; Siebert, T.; D’Souza, S. Reference measures of lower-limb joint range of motion, muscle strength, and selective voluntary motor control of typically developing children aged 5–17 years. J. Child. Orthop. 2024, 18, 404–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Magnusson, P.; Renström, P. The European College of Sports Sciences position statement: The role of stretching exercises in sports. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2006, 6, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Comerford, M.J.; Mottram, S.L. Review article: Movement and stability dysfunction-Contemporary developments. Man. Ther. 2001, 6, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Savelsbergh, G.; Davids, K.; van der Kamp, J.; Bennett, S.J. Development of Movement Co-Ordination in Children: Applications in the Fields of Ergonomics, Health Sciences and Sport; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  61. Chen, C.; Yang, S.; Tang, Y.; Yu, X.; Chen, C.; Zhang, C.; Luo, F. Correlation between strength/endurance of paraspinal muscles and sagittal parameters in patients with degenerative spinal deformity. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2023, 24, 643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Han, G.; Zhou, S.; Qiu, W.; Fan, Z.; Yue, L.; Li, W.; Li, W. Role of the Paraspinal Muscles in the Sagittal Imbalance Cascade: The Effects of Their Endurance and of Their Morphology on Sagittal Spinopelvic Alignment. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2023, 105, 1954–1961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Manikowska, F.; Brazevič, S.; Jóźwiak, M.; Lebiedowska, M.K. Contribution of Different Impairments to Restricted Knee Flexion during Gait in Individuals with Cerebral Palsy. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Marsico, P.; Tal-Akabi, A.; van Hedel, H.J.A. The relevance of nerve mobility on function and activity in children with Cerebral Palsy. BMC Neurol. 2016, 16, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. MacWilliams, B.A.; Prasad, S.; Shuckra, A.L.; Schwartz, M.H. Causal factors affecting gross motor function in children diagnosed with cerebral palsy. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0270121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Souza, R.B.; Fang, C.; Luke, A.; Wu, S.; Li, X.; Majumdar, S. Relationship between knee kinetics during jumping tasks and knee articular cartilage MRI T1rho and T2 relaxation times. Clin. Biomech. 2012, 27, 403–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Đorđić, V.; Tubić, T.; Jakšić, D. The Relationship between Physical, Motor, and Intellectual Development of Preschool Children. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 233, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ansa, O.E.O.; Mprah, K.W.; Moses, M.O.; Owusu, I.; Acheampong, E. Effect of Community-Based Functional Aerobic Training on Motor Performance and Quality of Life of Children with Spastic Cerebral Palsy. Ethiop. J. Health Sci. 2021, 31, 381–392. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  69. Labaf, S.; Shamsoddini, A.; Hollisaz, M.T.; Sobhani, V.; Shakibaee, A. Effects of Neurodevelopmental Therapy on Gross Motor Function in Children with Cerebral Palsy. Iran J. Child. Neurol. 2015, 9, 36–41. [Google Scholar]
  70. Pierce, S.R.; Skorup, J.; Paremski, A.C.; Prosser, L.A. The relationship between the Family Empowerment Scale and Gross Motor Function Measure-66 in Young Children with cerebral palsy. Child. Care Health Dev. 2021, 47, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Zeng, N.; Ayyub, M.; Sun, H.; Wen, X.; Xiang, P.; Gao, Z. Effects of physical activity on motor skills and cognitive development in early childhood: A systematic review. BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 2760716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lee, D.; Shepherd, M.K.; Mulrine, S.C.; Schneider, J.D.; Moore, K.F.; Eggebrecht, E.M.; Rogozinski, B.M.; Herrin, K.R.; Young, A.J. Reducing Knee Hyperextension With an Exoskeleton in Children and Adolescents with Genu Recurvatum: A Feasibility Study. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2023, 70, 3312–3320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Nyland, J.; Pyle, B.; Richards, J.; Yoshida, K.; Brey, J.; Carter, S. A clinical practice review of therapeutic movement-based anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction return to sports bridge program: The biological, biomechanical and behavioral rationale. Ann. Jt. 2023, 8, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Fox, E.J.; Moon, H.; Kwon, M.; Chen, Y.-T.; Christou, E.A. Neuromuscular control of goal-directed ankle movements differs for healthy children and adults. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2014, 114, 1889–1899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Petersen, T.H.; Kliim-Due, M.; Farmer, S.F.; Nielsen, J.B. Childhood development of common drive to a human leg muscle during ankle dorsiflexion and gait. J. Physiol. 2010, 588, 4387–4400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Anieto, E.M.; Anieto, I.B.; Ituen, O.A.; Naidoo, N.; Ezema, C.I.; Smits-Engelsman, B. The relationship between kinaesthesia, motor performance, physical fitness and joint mobility in children living in Nigeria. BMC Pediatr. 2023, 23, 526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Raudsepp, L.; Pääsuke, M. Gender Differences in Fundamental Movement Patterns, Motor Performances, and Strength Measurements of Prepubertal Children. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 1995, 7, 294–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Cech, D.J.; Martin, S.T. Functional Movement Development Across the Life Span, 4th ed.; Elsevier Health Sciences: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; ISBN 9780323878951. [Google Scholar]
  79. Rao, P.; Vander Schaaf, E.B.; Steiner, M.J.; Perry, M. Normal child growth and development. In Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Health, 1st ed.; Halpern-Felsher, B., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023; Volume 1, pp. 295–309. [Google Scholar]
  80. de Onis, M.; Garza, C.; Victora, C.G.; Onyango, A.W.; Frongillo, E.A.; Martines, J. The WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study: Planning, study design, and methodology. Food Nutr. Bull. 2004, 25, S15–S26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Malina, R.; Bouchard, C.; Bar-Or, O. Growth, Maturation, and Physical Activity, 2nd ed.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  82. Hadders-Algra, M. Development of postural control during the first 18 months of life. Neural Plast. 2005, 12, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hadders-Algra, M. Early human motor development: From variation to the ability to vary and adapt. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2018, 90, 411–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Mean and percentile distribution of outcome measures.
Table 1. Mean and percentile distribution of outcome measures.
VariableMean ± Std. DeviationMin.Max.Percentile
25th 50th (Median)75th
Gender (N, %)M (69,46.0); F (81, 54.0)
Grouped body fat percentile (N, %)<50th (81, 54.0); 50th–59th (10, 6.7); 60th–69th (16, 10.7); 70th–79th (9, 6.0); 80th–89th (10, 6.7); >90th (24, 16.0)
Age group (year) (N, %)2.0–2.99 (38, 25.3); 3.0–3.99 (90, 60.0); 4.0–4.99 (22, 14.7)
Age (year)3.25 ± 0.642.004.402.903.303.0
Height (cm)99.26 ± 7.5683.60144.0094.9299.10102.40
Weight (kg)15.61 ± 2.7510.327.713.7715.4517.10
BMI kg/m215.91 ± 2.099.325.714.5015.6016.60
WHR (cm)0.93 ± 0.040.821.120.900.930.96
RHF (°)112.91 ± 14.7611135105.75115.00123.00
RHE (°)26.82 ± 4.0617.035.024.0027.0030.00
RKF (°)125.26 ± 8.63101138120.00128.00132.00
RKE (°)119.45 ± 17.7523140112.75124.50130.00
RADF (°)20.75 ± 4.8512.037.018.0020.0020.00
RAPF (°)33.50 ± 8.71145026.7534.0040.00
LHF (°)111.67 ± 11.7679134105.00111.50120.00
LHE (°)26.73 ± 4.58193923.0027.0029.00
LKF (°)124.29 ± 9.3290.0139.4119.00127.00130.00
LKE (°)119.72 ± 16.1725138113.75123.00130.00
LADF (°)20.52 ± 4.8312.036.018.0019.0022.00
LAPF (°)33.25 ± 8.65145025.7533.0040.00
GMFM A%77.25 ± 22.451.9100.066.6782.4096.10
GMFM B%89.18 ± 15.1311.7100.086.7095.00100.00
GMFM C%91.04 ± 16.349.5100.090.3096.10100.00
GMFM D%90.82 ± 19.0810.2100.091.42100.00100.00
GMFM E%84.22 ± 20.944.2100.082.7293.0595.80
GMFM total%84.33 ± 17.426.0099.5082.8790.0594.52
Table 2. Correlations comparison between angular kinematic and gross motor function variables.
Table 2. Correlations comparison between angular kinematic and gross motor function variables.
Gross Motor FunctionLying and RollingSittingCrawling and KneelingStandingWalking, Running, and JumpingGMFM Total%
Angular kinematic variablesPearson correlation Pearson correlation Pearson correlation Pearson correlation Pearson correlation Pearson correlation
Left hip flexion−0.105−0.104−0.017−0.001−0.049−0.113
Right hip flexion0.0680.0200.081−0.008−0.036−0.005
Left hip extension−0.035−0.032−0.0150.010−0.060−0.087
Right hip extension0.221 **0.081−0.090−0.0590.1430.032
Left knee flexion−0.050−0.061−0.010−0.0480.1040.065
Right knee flexion−0.158−0.0620.0450.012−0.057−0.094
Left knee extension−0.267 **−0.1410.196 *−0.098−0.214 **−0.131
Right knee extension 0.027−0.0320.029−0.030−0.069−0.055
Left ankle dorsi-flexion −0.090−0.059−0.0390.034−0.040−0.110
Right ankle dorsi-flexion0.240 **−0.1420.188 *−0.095−0.207 *−0.088
Right ankle plantar flexion−0.048−0.0160.0860.006−0.0440.018
Left ankle plantar flexion0.264 **0.115−0.014−0.0520.1500.054
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), * correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed), and % gross motor function measure = GMFM total%.
Table 3. Comparison between angular kinematic and gross motor function variables by gender.
Table 3. Comparison between angular kinematic and gross motor function variables by gender.
VariableGenderMean RankMean ± Std.Mean Diff.Tp-Value95% CI
Age (year)M76.363.25 ± 0.08−0.0034−0.0330.974−0.2131, 0.20623
F74.773.25 ± 0.06
Height (cm)M82.78100.85 ± 9.372.92512.3960.018 *0.51262, 5.33760
F69.3097.92 ± 5.29
Weight (kg)M77.4415.66 ± 2.500.08880.1960.845−0.8058, 0.9834
F73.8515.57 ± 2.96
BMI (kg/m2)M70.5115.74 ± 2.22−0.3084−0.8990.370−0.9863, 0.3696
F79.7516.05 ± 1.97
WHR (cm)M79.860.93 ± 0.040.00741.1330.259−0.00554, 0.02045
F71.790.92 ± 0.03
RHF (°)M74.07113.61 ± 10.811.2880.5310.596−3.503, 6.079
F76.72112.32 ± 17.48
RHE (°)M76.7726.90 ± 4.000.14840.2220.824−1.1710, 1.4678
F74.4226.75 ± 4.13
RKF (°)M72.23124.67 ± 8.67−1.099−0.7750.439−3.899, 1.702
F78.28125.77 ± 8.63
RKE (°)M75.36119.49 ± 18.600.0850.0290.977−5.683, 5.853
F75.62119.41 ± 17.11
RADF (°)M77.2820.93 ± 4.750.34360.4310.667−1.2325, 1.9198
F73.9920.59 ± 4.96
RAPF (°)M70.1432.51 ± 8.45−1.838−1.2900.199−4.655, 0.978
F80.0734.35 ± 8.90
LHF (°)M72.59111.35 ± 10.60−0.590−0.3050.760−4.411, 3.230
F77.98111.94 ± 12.72
LHE (°)M72.9726.33 ± 4.18−0.741−0.9870.325−2.225, 0.743
F77.6527.07 ± 4.89
LKF (°)M74.75124.23 ± 9.15−0.1080−0.0700.944−3.1371, 2.9211
F76.14124.34 ± 9.52
LKE (°)M79.20121.67 ± 14.323.6051.3640.175−1.617, 8.826
F72.35118.06 ± 17.51
LADF (°)M75.1920.78 ± 4.810.47770.6020.548−1.0906, 2.0460
F75.7720.30 ± 4.86
LAPF (°)M71.6132.43 ± 8.26−1.503−1.0610.290−4.303, 1.296
F78.8133.94 ± 8.95
GMFM A%M72.9776.86 ± 21.58−0.7239−0.1960.845−8.0158, 6.5680
F77.6577.58 ± 23.29
GMFM B%M74.4190.77 ± 10.702.93791.1870.237−1.9543, 7.8301
F76.4387.83 ± 18.03
GMFM C%M74.3389.63 ± 19.19−2.6049−0.9730.332−7.8982, 2.6883
F76.4992.23 ± 13.46
GMFM D%M75.0990.40 ± 19.75−0.7736−0.2470.806−6.9722, 5.4249
F75.8591.17 ± 18.61
GMFM E%M76.6985.01 ± 21.111.47440.4290.669−5.3246, 8.2734
F74.4983.54 ± 20.90
GMFM total%M75.7984.42 ± 17.310.167720.0590.953−5.49372, 5.82917
F75.2584.25 ± 17.62
* Significant difference at p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moses, M.O.; Onuegbu, N.F.; Deku, P.D.-G.; Nyarko, M.A.; Owusu, L.B.; Emikpe, A.O.; John, E.B.; Soangra, R.; Yifieyeh, A.C.; Titiloye, N.A. Joint Angular Kinematics and Gross Motor Function in Typically Developing Healthy Children. Children 2025, 12, 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12030280

AMA Style

Moses MO, Onuegbu NF, Deku PD-G, Nyarko MA, Owusu LB, Emikpe AO, John EB, Soangra R, Yifieyeh AC, Titiloye NA. Joint Angular Kinematics and Gross Motor Function in Typically Developing Healthy Children. Children. 2025; 12(3):280. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12030280

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moses, Monday Omoniyi, Ngozi Florence Onuegbu, Prince De-Gualle Deku, Mary Abena Nyarko, Lydia Boampong Owusu, Abigael Omowumi Emikpe, Emmanuel Babatunde John, Rahul Soangra, Abiboye Cheduko Yifieyeh, and Nicholas Akinwale Titiloye. 2025. "Joint Angular Kinematics and Gross Motor Function in Typically Developing Healthy Children" Children 12, no. 3: 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12030280

APA Style

Moses, M. O., Onuegbu, N. F., Deku, P. D.-G., Nyarko, M. A., Owusu, L. B., Emikpe, A. O., John, E. B., Soangra, R., Yifieyeh, A. C., & Titiloye, N. A. (2025). Joint Angular Kinematics and Gross Motor Function in Typically Developing Healthy Children. Children, 12(3), 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12030280

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop