The Impact of Home Motor Affordances on Motor Skills of Children Born Preterm

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2250018/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The Impact of Home Motor Affordances on Motor Skills of Children Born Preterm

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2250018/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Children born preterm at generally considered at-risk for a multitude of physical impairments. This study examined the relationship between a sample born preterm, the availability of home motor affordances, and level of motor development.

Method:The sample consisted of 103 children born preterm and assessed between the ages of 18- to 42 months using two parent self-reports: the Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development(AHEMD), and the Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ-3) for level of motor skill development.

Results:Overall AHEMD scores revealed three distinct groups (Group 3 provided the greatest level of affordances). Significant group differences were revealed for fine-motor (FM) and gross motor (GM) skills with Group 3 better than the other two groups and Group 2 better than Group 1. According to regression results, the total AHEMD score predicted 51% of FM ability and 43% of GM behavior.

Conclusions:The level of home motor affordances had a significant impact on the motor development of this sample of children born preterm. With that said, comparisons to general norm data suggest that these children still need special attention, especially with gross motor skill development.

affordances

motor development

home environment

preterm

• Children born preterm typically need special attention to their physical abilities.

• The home environment that includes motor affordances and stimulation, may have a significant impact of motor skill development.

• Homes with a greater level of motor affordances show higher motor skill levels in children born preterm, especially with gross-motor skills.

Contemporary research findings suggest that children and adolescents who possess motor competence are more likely to use those skills and therefore are more likely to be less sedentary and healthier ( e.g., Jaakkola et al., 2016; King-Dowling et al., 2020; Lopes et al., 2020). Few would argue that the best time to start addressing motor development is during infancy and early childhood. Given that the primary context of that offering is typically in the home, a body of information has shown that family characteristics (e.g., income, parental education, stimulation), and the provision of motor affordances in the home could have a significant impact on motor skill development (e.g., Beach et al., 2012, Miquelote et al., 2012; Saccani et al., 2013; Valentini et al., 2020).

Affordances are characteristics of the environmental setting and opportunities that offer the individual potential for action, and consequently, to learn and develop a skill or a part of the biological system ( E. J. Gibson, 2001; J. J. Gibson, 1979). In addition to the more obvious set of affordances such as toys and availability of space, stimulation by parents (and others) provide the additional component of events. According to Hirose (2002), “Affordances are opportunities for action that objects, events, or places in the environment provide for the animal” (p. 104). Regarding the assessment of home and family characteristics, one of the most widely used instruments has been the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) inventory (Bradley et al., 1989). Although the HOME inventory does not focus on home ‘motor’ affordances and related factors, one of the most consistent findings in studies using the HOME is the strong relationship between the “availability of toys and stimulating materials” and the child's general developmental status (Bradley et al., 1989; Mundfrom et al., 1993). More recent years have seen the use of the Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development (AHEMD) for children 18–42 months (Rodrigues et al., 2005) and the AHEMD – Infant Scale (Caçola et al., 2015),for ages 3–18 months. With these tools, several studies have reported a significant association between the level of affordances in the home and the child's motor skill development. In other words, higher home affordance scores are related to higher motor skill levels (Beach et al., 2021; Cao et al., 2021; Mori et al., 2013; Saccani et al., 2013; Valadi & Gabbard, 2020).

Virtually all of the studies mentioned examined typically developing infants and children. Our focus was on the effects of home affordances on children born preterm (< 38 weeks). About 15 million children are born prematurely each year, according to the World Health Organization, (2019). Prematurity is associated with an increased risk of long-term health and neurodevelopmental problems. These children typically exhibit a broad range of neuropsychological and cognitive outcomes, including motor behavior ( e.g., Chung et al., 2020; Panceri et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). Motor development from reviewed studies encompasses the quality of movement, developmental milestones, motor skills (fine- and gross motor), visual-spatial, visual-motor integration, balance, and coordination. These infants are at risk for motor dysfunction and delay even into late adulthood (Pikel et al., 2017). For example, Wocadlo & Rieger (2008), reported that at age 8 years, one-third of their preterm sample (100/300) were identified as having developmental coordination disorder. One of the most frequently cited deficits is poor fine and visual-motor integration (e.g., Bo et al., 2013; Gabbard et al., 2001). In addition to the direct perceptual-motor development concern, the literature provides a reasonable case that such deficits place this population at increased risk for poor academic performance and difficulties with specific daily living (self-help) activities. Although home motor affordances were not specifically examined, a review of the literature suggests that a supportive family environment and intervention for those born preterm is linked to improved neurodevelopmental outcomes, including motor development (Akhbari et al., 2021; Raghupathy et al., 2021; Rodovanski et al., 2022). On the other hand, poor parenting environments lead to poor developmental outcomes in preterm children across childhood.

A review of the literature noted only one study that focused on the relationship between preterm children, motor ability, and the availability of motor affordances in the home(Vieira, Silva, & Frônio, 2017). The researchers assessed the availability of affordances (for those attending and not attending daycare) in those children born preterm. Their results, also using the AHEMD instrument, revealed only one significant difference between the preterm group and control; greater Variety of Stimulation in the non-attending group; that is, in the group that was home only. Using the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (Haley et al., 1992), results revealed no differences between the groups in sections of Self-care (e.g., dressing, bathing) and Functional Skills (Mobility) (e.g., rolling, standing, walking); the average age of assessment was 31 months.

Therefore, whereas the bulk of research on this topic has been conducted with samples of typically developing infants and young children, as noted, little has been done examining the relationship between children born preterm and subsequent home affordances and motor development. As noted earlier, the case is reasonably clear that children born preterm are likely to require special home attention to their physical needs. The present study addressed that question with children aged 18–42 months. We expected that children living in homes that provide a higher level of affordances and stimulation will also exhibit better motor skills.

2.1 Participants

The study included 103 children (54 [52.4%] boys, and 49 [47.6%] girls) born preterm (32- to 36 weeks). All children selected were in the 18–42 month age range at the time of data collection (descriptive information is presented in Table 1). The inclusion criteria were: 1). children aged 18–42 months, 2. no kindergarten experience, 3. birth age between 32–36 weeks, and 4). birth weight between 1500–2500 gm. Approval for the study was given by the Human Subjects Committee of the Faculty of Physical Education of Al-Zahra University (IR.ALZAHRA.REC.1400.030).

Table 1

Age and anthropometrics for the three groups
Variables	Group 1 (mean ± SD) n = 42	Group 2 (mean ± SD) n = 22	Group 3 (mean ± SD) n = 39	Total (mean ± SD) N = 103
Age of birth (weeks)	33.33 ± 5	34.31 ± 1.52	33.64 ± 1.99	33.66 ± 3.48
Age at the time of data collection (months)	31.02 ± 5.48	30.61 ± 6.13	28.68 ± 5.14	30.04 ± 5.55
Weight of birth (kg)	1.98 ± 0.3	1.96 ± 0.3	2 ± 0.34	1.98 ± 0.31
Weight at the time of data collection (kg)	12.59 ± 1.72	12.92 ± 1.51	11.94 ± 2.39	12.41 ± 1.98
Height of birth (cm)	48.39 ± 2.18	47.37 ± 1.99	48.94 ± 2.01	48.23 ± 2.06
Height at the time of data collection (cm)	86.92 ± 6.11	8939 ± 6.55	87.99 ± 15.26	87.86 ± 10.55

2.2 Sampling

Seven out of 22 districts in Tehran (Iran) were selected by simple random sampling. Researchers then went to health centers in the districts and collected health statistics of the children. Following that, all families were contacted and the purpose of the study was explained and written consent was obtained from those who agreed to participate. Initially, 174 questionnaires were distributed, and 143 questionnaires were received within the required interval of two weeks. Of those, 121 questionnaires were complete; for a response rate of 69.5%. Family income was grouped into low (32%), middle (43), and high (25%) based on the Iranian currency [Toman]. In terms of parent education: high school diploma (mother 36%, father 25%), associate or bachelor's degrees (mother 50%, father 50%), and master or Ph.D. degrees (mother 15%, father 24%).

Insert Table 1 near here

2.3 Measures

2.3.1 Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development- Self Reported (AHEMD-SR)

The Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development-Self Report (AHEMD-SR) (Gabbard et al., 2008; Rodrigues et al., 2005) was used for parents to self-report qualitative and quantitative measurements of affordances and stimuli available in the home. The questionnaire consists of 67 items that categorize 20 variables based on shared content. One section asks questions about the characteristics of the Family (e.g., size of the home, socioeconomic status). The 5-factor assessment includes Outside Space (OS), Inside Space (IS), Variety of Stimulation (VS), Fine Motor Toys (FMT), and Gross Motor Toys (GMT). The questionnaire contains simple yes/no and Likert-type questions and descriptive questions. Sample toy images are provided to guide the respondent's identification of available toys. The authors suggest that a total score of < 10 represents 'low' affordance opportunities, 10–15 'average' with sufficient affordance opportunities, and a score of 16–20 'high' with excellent affordance opportunities.

For the present study, we used the Persian version of the AHEMD-SR with Iranian norms.

Standardization included using 1019 Iranian families with a validity of 0.92 and reliability of 0.9 using time stability (test-retest). Internal consistency has been reported to be 0.92 (Valadi et al., 2018).

2.3.2 Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3)

The Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ-3) (Squires & Bricker, 2009) were used to evaluate fine- and gross motor skills. The questionnaire evaluates the developmental status of children aged 1–66 months in five areas of development: fine-motor, gross-motor, communication, problem-solving and personal-social. The questionnaire consists of 30 questions (six for each area) designed for each age group and the highest score obtainable for each question is 10 (60 for each development area). Numerous studies have shown that the ASQ-3 is a valid and reliable test (e.g., Charkaluk et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2017). The present study used the Persian version of the ASQ-3 with Iranian norms. Standardization included using 555 Iranian children; Its validity was Confirmed through factor analysis and its reliability was determined to be 0.79 using Cronbach’s alpha (Sajedi et al., 2014). Recent studies using the Persian version have been published (Kavousipor et al., 2021; Valadi & Gabbard, 2020).

2.4 Data Analysis

After collecting AHEMD score questionnaire data, the information for affordances was divided into three groups: low or Group 1 (< 10) (n = 42), average Group 2 (10–15) (n = 22), and high Group 3 (> 15) (n = 39), based on test author recommendations (Gabbard et al., 2008; Valadi et al., 2018).

Schapiro-Wilk test was used to check the normality of the data. Independent t-tests were used to compare descriptive information based on gender. Group comparison based on AHEMD scores, financial income, and level of education was analyzed using one-way ANOVA tests. Post hoc comparisons were performed using an LSD test, and effect sizes smaller than 0.06 were considered small, between 0.06 and 0.14 as moderate, and larger than 0.14 as large.

The results of the Schapiro-Wilk test confirmed the normality of the data (p > 0.05). The results of independent t-test showed that there was no significant difference between girls and boys for age (F _{(1, 101)} = 2.24, p = 0.15, t = 1.43 ), weight (F _{(1, 101)} = 2.02, p = 0.64, t = 0.46), height (F _{(1, 101)} = 1.75, p = 0.15, t = 1.44), AHEMD total scores (F _{(1, 101)} = 6.74, p = 0.47, t = -0.72), fine-motor scores (ASQ)(FM) (F _{(1, 101)} = 0.15, p = 0.44, t = -0.76), and gross-motor scores (ASQ)(GM) (F _{(1, 101)} = 3.69, p = 0.58, t = -0.55). Therefore, the results of girls and boys were merged and analyzed as one value (Cadoret et al., 2018).

Total AHEMD Score Comparisons

For total AHEMD scores, results of the one-way ANOVA test indicated that there is no significant difference between age (F _{(2, 100)} = 1.18, p = 0.14, η_p² = 0.03), height (F _{(2, 100)} = 1.49, p = 0.57, η_p² = 0.01), and weight (F _{(2, 100)} = 0.39, p = 0.67, η_p² = 0.008) of participants in Group 1, 2 and 3. Table 2 provides mean score results for the three AHEMD groups.

Table 2

Means and standard deviations for fine- and gross motor skills based on AHEMD groups
Variables	Group 1 (mean ± SD) n = 42	Group 2 (mean ± SD) n = 22	Group 3 (mean ± SD) n = 39	Total (mean ± SD) N = 103
FM	17.61 ± 11.75	25 ± 7.07	35 ± 16.05	25.77 ± 14.89
GM	17.85 ± 10.82	25.45 ± 8.71	34.1 ± 18.56	25.63 ± 15.6

Insert Table 2 near here

Regarding income status, results of the one-way ANOVA test showed that there was a significant difference between the groups for total AHEMD score (F _{(2, 100)} = 16.35, p = 0.00, η_p² = 0.24), FM (F _{(2, 100)} = 4.82, p = 0.01, η_p² = 0.08), and GM (F _{(2, 100)} = 6.05, p = 0.003, η_p² = 0.1). About the three family income groups, children of families with higher financial status had greater total AHEMD scores than the middle- and lower-income groups (p = 0.004 and p = 0.00 respectively). In addition, the middle group had higher scores than the lower group (p = 0.001).

For there was no significant difference between the low and middle groups in FM (p = 0.29), and GM scores (p = 0.22). However, there was a significant difference between the high and low groups in FM (p = 0.003) and GM (p = 0.001), and between the high and middle groups in FM (p = 0.027) and GM (p = 0.014).

Based on the father's education level, there was no significant difference between AHEMD groups (low, middle, and high) (F _{(2, 100)} = 0.99, p = 0.37, η_p² = 0.02), and no difference between groups for FM (F _{(2, 100)} = 0.13, p = 0.87, η_p² = 0.003) and GM scores (F _{(2, 100)} = 2.02, p = 0.13, η_p² = 0.13). However, based on mothers education, there was a significant difference in total AHEMD (F _{(2, 100)} = 42.34, p = 0.00, η_p² = 0.45), FM (F _{(2, 100)} = 8.69, p = 0.00, η_p² = 0.14) and GM scores (F _{(2, 100)} = 6.13, p = 0.003, η_p² = 0.1). According to the LSD results, the scores of the highest education group were significantly higher than the other two groups in total AHEMD, FM, and GM (p < 0.05). The middle group was also higher than the low group for the same variables (p < 0.05).

AHEMD Item Scores and ASQ-3 Characteristics

Based on AHEMD groupings, one-way ANOVA results showed that with FM (F _{(2, 100)} = 18.55, p = 0.00, η_p² = 0.27), and GM (F _{(2, 100)} = 13.69, p = 0.00, η_p² = 0.21), there was a significant difference between the three groups. LSD post hoc test showed that in both FM and GM, Group 3 was significantly higher (see Table 3 and Fig. 1) than Groups 1 and 2; Group 2 exhibited significantly higher scores than Group 1.

Table 3

LSD test results for AHEMD group differences.
	AHEMD (I)	AHEMD (J)	Mean Difference (I-J)	SD	p value
FM	1	2	-7.38^*	3.38	0.03
	1	3	-17.38^*	2.85	0.000
	2	3	-10^*	3.42	0.004
GM	1	2	-7.59^*	3.67	0.04
	1	3	-16.24^*	3.1	0.00
	2	3	-8.64^*	3.72	0.00
* Significant at the 0.05 level.

Insert Table 3 near here

Insert Fig. 1 near here

As shown in Table 4, the correlation between the total and subtest score of the AHEMD with FM and GM (ASQ) was high and significant, with the highest association being the total AHEMD score with FM (r = 0.51).

Table 4

The results of correlation matrix between under study variables.
AHEMD	FM (ASQ)	GM (ASQ)
OS	0.48^**	0.44^**
IS	0.41^**	0.37^**
VS	0.44^**	0.33^**
FMT	0.49^**	0.45^**
GMT	0.47^**	0.44^**
Total Score	0.51^**	0.43^**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
1. Valadi, S.; Gabbard, C.; Arabameri, E.; Kashi, A.; Ghasemi, A. Psychometric properties of the Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development inventory for use with Iranian children aged 18–42 months. Infant Behav. Dev. 2018, 50, 1–11.

Insert Table 4 near here

In this study, simple linear regression was used to predict the level of AHEMD scores on FM and GM. Results indicated that total AHEMD predicted 51% of FM ability and 43% of GM behavior. In addition, total AHEMD score predicted 25% of FM (F = 36.72, p = 0.00, Durbin Watson = 1.85) and 17% of GM (F = 23.14, p = 0.00, Durbin Watson = 1.97). Thus, it is expected that affordances in the home environment are effective for the development of fine- and gross motor skills.

Stepwise regression was used to determine the amount and effectiveness of each of the five dimensions of the AHEMD on FM and GM scores. For FM and GM, only FMT was included in the regression equation, and this variable alone represented 24% and 20% of the FM (R = 0.49, F = 32.8, p = 0.00, Durbin Watson = 1.86) and GM (R = 0.45, F = 27.02, p = 0.00, Durbin Watson = 2.01) scores, respectively. The other four variables did not pass the desired criterion and were removed from the model. Therefore, the result was that FMT was the best predictor of FM and GM.

This study aimed to examine the relationship between children born preterm and subsequent home motor affordances and motor development. Previous studies of home affordances focused on samples of children born within a normal gestational age range. As noted earlier, our curiosity focused on the level of home affordances that parents provided their preterm children compared to previous reports using children born within the normal age range. For example, Araujo and colleagues reported that the homes of infants with hearing loss risk factors provided fewer affordances when compared to homes of children with no indicators.

First of all, regarding general family characteristics, as one might expect, children of families with more income had greater total AHEMD scores. And, motor importantly, their children scored significantly higher on FM and GM questions. About parent education, complementing those results, children from families in the high education group scored significantly higher than the other two groups in total AHEMD, FM, and GM (Freitas, Gabbard, Caçola, Montebelo, & Santos, 2013; Valadi & Gabbard, 2020; Zoghi, Gabbard, Shojaei, & Shahshahani, 2019)

Results between the three total AHEMD groups (level of affordances) and FM and GM, scores revealed that the highest AHEMD group (3) displayed significantly better scores (Fig. 1); Group 2 did better than Group 1. Whereas all correlations between the AHEMD (with subscales) and ASQ (FM, GM) were significant, scores were in the moderate range, with the highest being AHEMD total scores with FM (0.51). Completing that, regression results found that total AHEMD predicted 51% of FM and 43% of GM findings. Regarding the association between the five dimensions of the AHEMD and motor development, only FMT (fine-motor toys) was a significant factor in FM and GM behavior.

As we reflect on these results, a few key findings are worthy of note. First, it appears that a home that provides an adequate level of motor affordances may have a positive influence on fine- and gross motor development; in our case, homes of children born preterm and typically at-risk for motor delays. In particular, the literature shows that children born preterm have difficulty during childhood with fine and visual-motor integration (e.g., Bo & Lee, 2013; Gabbard et al., 2001). Another interesting note is that 62% of the sample provided ‘adequate’ (Groups 2 and 3) home affordances for their children; suggesting that the majority of parents of preterm children in this sample recognized the benefits of providing a good home environment. And, in this case, one that promotes motor development.

As a point of reference and perspective, a general comparison of our sample with the ASQ-3 norms (at 30 months; equal to the mean age of our sample) provides an interesting observation with cut-off values of 2 SDs below the mean suggesting that professional assistance may be needed; our sample’s scores for all three AHEMD groups fell below the cutoff for GM (gross-motor). Group 1 fell below FM and GM. From these values, we can speculate that whereas home affordances had a significant effect on motor skills, that is, Groups 2 and 3 had better scores than Group 1, children born preterm are still in need of assistance, especially in the category of gross-motor development.

Limitations

As with any study, our project has limitations in achieving its full potential. The most obvious one is the use of a parental questionnaire to assess the child's motor development. Although the ASQ-3 tool is reported to be valid and reliable (including in Iran), actual physical assessment could provide more depth into skill development. Second, whereas the AHEMD-SR provides a moment in time glimpse of home affordances, it does not provide information regarding the quality of time the child spends on affordances. A third limitation is in using the AHEMD (and ASQ) at a single point in time, rather than tracking the availability of affordances over multiple time points.

And finally, since this study was done in Tehran, it cannot be generalizable. However, the findings apply to a significant portion of urban children in which different factors might impact fine- and gross motor development.

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to all health center administrators, parents, and children involved in the study, as without them this project could not have been undertaken.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors have no conflict of interest or external funding to declare for the present study.

ETHICS STATEMENT

All procedures for this study were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the first author's university (IR.ALZAHRA.REC.1400.030).

INFORMED CONSENT

All participants (parents) included in the current investigation provided informed consent before their participation.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data used in the current study can be made available upon reasonable request to the first author.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

This article is derived from the thesis of the first author and all authors actively contributed to it.

FUNDING

This article received no funding.

Akhbari Ziegler S, von Rhein M, Meichtry A, Wirz M, Hielkema T, Hadders-Algra M, Network SN, Follow‐Up Group (2021) The Coping with and caring for infants with special needs intervention was associated with improved motor development in preterm infants. Acta Paediatr 110(4):1189–1200
Beach P, Perreault M, Lieberman L (2021) Affordances for motor development in the home environment for young children with and without CHARGE Syndrome. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(22):11936
Bo J, Lee C-M (2013) Motor skill learning in children with developmental coordination disorder. Res Dev Disabil 34(6):2047–2055
Bradley RH, Caldwell BM, Rock SL, Ramey CT, Barnard KE, Gray C, Siegel L (1989) Home environment and cognitive development in the first 3 years of life: A collaborative study involving six sites and three ethnic groups in North America. Dev Psychol 25(2):217
Cadoret G, Bigras N, Duval S, Lemay L, Tremblay T, Lemire J (2018) The mediating role of cognitive ability on the relationship between motor proficiency and early academic achievement in children. Hum Mov Sci 57:149–157
Caçola PM, Gabbard C, Montebelo MIL (2015) & Santos, D. C. C. Further
development and validation of the Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development – Infant Scale (AHEMD-IS).Physical Therapy, 95(6),901–923
Cao Z, Su X, Ni Y, Luo T, Hua J (2021) Association between the home environment and development among 3-to 11‐month infants in Shanghai, China. Child: Care, Health and Development
Charkaluk M-L, Rousseau J, Calderon J, Bernard JY, Forhan A, Heude B, … Group EMCS(2017) Ages and stages questionnaire at 3 years for predicting IQ at 5–6 years.Pediatrics, 139(4)
Chung EH, Chou J, Brown KA (2020) Neurodevelopmental outcomes of preterm infants: a recent literature review. Translational Pediatr 9(Suppl 1):S3
Freitas TCB, Gabbard C, Caçola P, Montebelo MIL, Santos DCC (2013) Family socioeconomic status and the provision of motor affordances in the home. Braz J Phys Ther 17:319–327
Gabbard C, Caçola P, Rodrigues LP (2008) A new inventory for assessing affordances in the home environment for motor development (AHEMD-SR). Early Childhood Educ J 36(1):5–9
Gabbard C, Goncalves VMG, Santos DCC (2001) Visual-motor integration problems in low birth weight infants. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 8(3):199–204
Gibson EJ (2001) Perceiving the affordances: A portrait of two psychologists. Psychology Press
Gibson JJ (1979) An ecological approach to perception. Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin
Haley SM, Coster W, Ludlow LH, Haltiwanger JT, Andrellos PJ (1992) Pediatric evaluation of disability inventory (PEDI). Health and Disability Research Institute Boston University
Hirose N (2002) An ecological approach to embodiment and cognition. Cogn Syst Res 3(3):289–299
Jaakkola T, Yli-Piipari S, Huotari P, Watt A, Liukkonen J (2016) Fundamental movement skills and physical fitness as predictors of physical activity: A 6‐year follow‐up study. Scand J Med Sci Sports 26(1):74–81
Kavousipor S, Rassafiani M, Gabbard C, Pourahmad S, Hosseini SA, Soleimani F, Ebadi A (2021) Influence of the home affordances on motor skills in 3-to 18-month-old Iranian children. Early Child Development and Care 191(16):2626–2633
King-Dowling S, Proudfoot NA, Cairney J, Timmons BW (2020) Motor Competence, Physical Activity, and Fitness across Early Childhood. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
Lopes VP, Utesch T, Rodrigues LP (2020) Classes of developmental trajectories of body mass index: differences in motor competence and cardiorespiratory fitness. J Sports Sci 38(6):619–625
Miquelote AF, Santos DC, Cacola PM, Montebelo MI, Gabbard C (2012) Effect of the home environment on motor and cognitive behavior of infants. Infant Behav Dev 35:329–334
Mori S, Nakamoto H, Mizuochi H, Ikudome S, Gabbard C (2013) Influence of affordances in the home environment on motor development of young children in Japan. Child Development Research, 2013
Mundfrom DJ, Bradley RH, Whiteside L (1993) A factor analytic study of the infant-toddler and early childhood versions of the HOME inventory. Educ Psychol Meas 53(2):479–489
Organization WH (2019) World health statistics 2019: Monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals. World Health Organization
Panceri C, Valentini NC, Silveira RC, Smith BA, Procianoy RS (2020) Neonatal Adverse Outcomes, Neonatal Birth Risks, and Socioeconomic Status: Combined Influence on Preterm Infants’ Cognitive, Language, and Motor Development in Brazil. J Child Neurol 35(14):989–998
Pikel TR, Starc G, Strel J, Kovač M, Babnik J, Golja P (2017) Impact of prematurity on exercise capacity and agility of children and youth aged 8 to 18. Early Hum Dev 110:39–45
Raghupathy MK, Rao BK, Nayak SR, Spittle AJ, Parsekar SS (2021) Effect of family-centered care interventions on motor and neurobehavior development of very preterm infants: a protocol for systematic review. Syst Reviews 10(1):1–8
Rodovanski GP, Reus BAB, Damiani AVC, Mattos KF, Moreira RS, Dos Santos AN (2021) Home-based early stimulation program targeting visual and motor functions for preterm infants with delayed tracking: Feasibility of a Randomized Clinical Trial. Res Dev Disabil 116:104037
Rodrigues LP, Saraiva L, Gabbard C (2005) Development and construct validation of an inventory for assessing the home environment for motor development. Res Q Exerc Sport 76(2):140–148
Saccani R, Valentini NC, Pereira KRG, Müller AB, Gabbard C (2013) Associations of biological factors and affordances in the home with infant motor development. Pediatr Int 55(2):197–203
Sajedi F, Vameghi R, Mujembari K, A (2014) Prevalence of undetected developmental delays in Iranian children. Child Care Health Dev 40(3):379–388
Schobert L, Valentini NC(2008) Infants’ motor development and the environment: Daycare nurture.Human Movement: Research Issues (1 St,155–177
Singh A, Yeh CJ, Blanchard SB (2017) Ages and stages questionnaire: a global screening scale. Boletín Médico Del Hospital Infantil de México (English Edition) 74(1):5–12
Squires J, Bricker D (2009) Ages & Stages Questionnaires® in Spanish. Brookes: Baltimore, MD [Google Scholar]
Valadi S, Gabbard C (2020) The effect of affordances in the home environment on children's fine- and gross motor skills. Early Child Development and Care 190(8):1225–1232
Valadi S, Gabbard C, Arabameri E, Kashi A, Ghasemi A (2018) Psychometric properties of the Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development inventory for use with Iranian children aged 18–42 months. Infant Behav Dev 50:1–11
Valentini NC, de Almeida CS, Smith BA (2020) Effectiveness of a home-based early cognitive-motor intervention provided in daycare, home care, and foster care settings: Changes in motor development and context affordances. Early Hum Dev 151:105223
Vieira MT, Silva J, Frônio J (2017) da S. Functional capacity, independence, and home affordances of premature children attending daycare centers. Fisioterapia Em Movimento, 30(1), 85–95
Wocadlo C, Rieger I (2008) Motor impairment and low achievement in very preterm children at eight years of age. Early Hum Dev 84(11):769–776
Zhang M, Gazimbi MM, Chen Z, Zhang B, Chen Y, Yu Y, Tang J(2020) Association between birth weight and neurodevelopment at age 1–6 months: results from the Wuhan Healthy Baby Cohort.BMJ Open, 10(1), e031916
Zoghi A, Gabbard C, Shojaei M, Shahshahani S (2019) The impact of home motor affordances on motor, cognitive and social development of young children. Iran J Child Neurol 13(2):61

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The Impact of Home Motor Affordances on Motor Skills of Children Born Preterm

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Key Messages

1. Introduction

2. Methods

2.1 Participants

2.2 Sampling

2.3 Measures

2.3.1 Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development- Self Reported (AHEMD-SR)

2.3.2 Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3)

2.4 Data Analysis

3. Results

4 Discussion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1