Movement Sport Sciences

Movement & Sport Sciences - Science & Motricité Science Motricité

© ACAPS, EDP Sciences, 2018
Available online at:
https://doi.org/10.1051/sm/2018025
www.mov-sport-sciences.org

ARTICLE

Reconsidering the fundamental movement skills construct:

Implications for assessment
Jonathan Leo Ng* and Chris Button
School of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Received 15 July 2018, Accepted 19 November 2018

Abstract -- A wide range of movement experiences over the early years of life is crucial for the development of
expertise in skill later in adulthood. A set of movements termed Fundamental Movement Skills has been
suggested as a precursor for performance of more complex movement. The attainment of FMS during childhood
is certainly a noble and worthwhile aim. However, we argue that mastery of FMS as demonstrated through
movement assessment batteries does not sufficiently capture movement competence in the general population.
Contemporary views of motor development, such as Ecological Dynamics, suggest instead, that regardless of
prior acquisition of a “fundamental” set of skills, an individual’s motor competence is the result of self-
organisation under constraint to achieve outcome goals. We propose a working definition of movement
competence that stresses the importance of the role of affordance detection and utilisation throughout the
lifespan. Thus, what should be considered “foundational” is a wide range of movement experiences that allows an
individual adequate opportunities for exploration and refinement in order to build expertise. Encouragingly,
new movement assessment tools are emerging that apply these important theoretical concepts and help to reveal
how individuals can demonstrate their movement adaptability instead of performing isolated movements based
upon an “ideal” standard.

Key words: movement competence, coordination, skill acquisition, motor development

Résumé -- Reconsidérer les compétences fondamentales du mouvement construire : Implications

pour l’évaluation. Un large éventail d’expériences de mouvement au cours des premières années de la vie est
crucial pour le développement de l’expertise en compétences plus tard à l’âge adulte. Un ensemble de
mouvements appelés compétences de mouvement fondamentales a été suggéré comme un précurseur pour
l’exécution de mouvements plus complexes. La réalisation du SMF pendant l’enfance est certainement un
objectif noble et valable. Cependant, nous soutenons que la maîtrise du FMS, démontrée par les batteries
d’évaluation des mouvements, ne rend pas suffisamment compte de la compétence des mouvements dans la
population en général. Les conceptions contemporaines du développement moteur, telles que Ecological
Dynamics, suggèrent plutôt que, indépendamment de l’acquisition préalable d’un ensemble de compétences
« fondamentales », la motricité d’un individu soit le résultat d’une auto-organisation contrainte à la réalisation
de ses objectifs. Nous proposons une définition pratique de la compétence du mouvement qui souligne
l’importance du rôle de la détection et de l’utilisation de l’argenterie tout au long de la vie. Ainsi, ce qui devrait
être considéré comme « fondamental » est un large éventail d’expériences de mouvement qui offre à un individu
des possibilités adéquates d’exploration et d’affinement permettant de développer une expertise. De manière
encourageante, de nouveaux outils d’évaluation des mouvements font leur apparition qui appliquent ces
concepts théoriques importants et aident à révéler comment les individus peuvent démontrer leur capacité
d’adaptation aux mouvements au lieu de réaliser des mouvements isolés basés sur un standard « idéal ».

Mots clés : compétence en mouvement, coordination, acquisition de compétences, développement moteur

With regards to the development of motor expertise, it
is of relevance to consider the importance of the first
decade or so of a human’s lifespan. Indeed, recent interest
in the holistic concept of physical literacy has refocused
*Corresponding author: ngjonathanleo@yahoo.com
attention to the underlying issue of fundamental move-
ment skills (Barnett et al., 2016; Giblin, Collins, & Button,
2014; Tremblay & Lloyd, 2010; Whitehead, 2010). Our
aim in this article is to reconsider the fundamental
movement skills (FMS) concept in light of emerging
research and our evolving understanding of this important
2 J.L. Ng: Mov Sport Sci/Sci Mot
feature of motor behaviour. We adopt an ecological
dynamics framework as our lens to propose that classifying
a set of skills as fundamental is debatable. Instead,
movement responses are a result of self-organisation under
constraints and not dependent upon individuals’ prior
acquirement of “fundamental” sets of movements.
We propose a working definition for movement
competence and further explore some of the key issues
and conceptual challenges associated with movement
assessment batteries (MABs) which are typically used to
assess movement competence. Finally, we suggest some
potential future directions for both the development and
assessment of movement competence.
1 Using ecological dynamics to redefine
movement competence
In this article, we adopt an Ecological Dynamics
perspective (Davids, Ara ujo, Shuttleworth, & Button,
2003; Seifert, Button, & Davids, 2013) to the development
of movement expertise. The ecological dynamics frame-
work integrates ecological psychology and dynamical
systems theory to conceptualise humans as open, complex
systems. Thus, motor development is a complex, non-
linear process and though age-related, is largely dependent
upon the prior movement experiences of an individual.
Hence, we define movement competence as the capacity of
an individual to adapt movements based upon affordances
and produce successful movement solutions that are
effective and efficient based upon their action-capabilities.
The capacity to develop movement competence or
expertise is dependent upon a variety of factors that can be
described with Newell’s constraints model approach
(Newell, 1986). Ecological Dynamics borrows concepts
emanating from Bernstein (1967) who proposed that
human movement patterns are a result of the system’s self-
organisation of stable movement patterns into functional
and flexible coordinative structures. The system’s move-
ment responses are influenced by the interactions between
the individual (organismic constraints), task and environ-
mental constraints. Kugler et al. (1980) described coordi-
native structures as flexible, temporary and specific to the
task at hand. In other words, collectives of muscles and
joints are constrained by the movement system to act
cooperatively to produce an action. In terms of expertise,
in a novice, initial movements often appear “frozen” and
rigid and with practice begin to free up and becoming
“smoother” as an individual gains familiarity with the task.
The increasing action-capabilities of an individual are
further influenced by an enhanced ability to identify and
utilise affordances (or opportunities for action) in the
environment. Gibson (1977) described affordances as that
what the environment offers or provides to the movement
system in terms of its action opportunities. An example of
an affordance is the extent to which stairs are “climbable”
in the sense of what is normally perceived as “walking up
the stairs whilst remaining upright”. Whether an individ-
ual is able to walk up the stairs is inherently dependent
upon organismic constraints of an individual’s leg length
and the environmental constraints of the height of each
step (Warren, 1984). If the height of each step is beyond
the action-capabilities of an individual, for example a
toddler, then, instead of climbing the stairs upright, the
toddler may climb up each step using all four limbs to
reach the top of the stairs, since that is what is afforded to
the toddler. On the other hand, an individual whose
action-capabilities far exceed the requirements of the task
of stair climbing may run up the stairs two steps at a time.
In another example that highlights how affordance use
may differ from expert to novices, Gérin-Lajoie et al.
(2007) found that trained athletes were able to utilise
locomotive movements to navigate through a complex
obstacle course faster in comparison to non-athletes. The
study suggests that the athletes’ movement responses
were due to better affordance identification and utilisation
during navigation.
In sum, the development of coordination and conse-
quently movement competence, emerge from the inter-
actions between the individual and the various constraints
that are partly dependent upon an individual’s prior
movement experiences. Based upon the action capabilities
of an individual (organismic constraint), the task and
environment may afford more opportunities to act/move
amongst experts compared to novices.
1.1 How important is movement competence?
A human’s capacity to move and engage in physical
activity has a profound impact upon one’s health, lifestyle,
and general well-being. Physical inactivity is perhaps the
greatest threat to public health in the 21st century (Blair,
2009). High levels of sedentary behaviour amongst school
children have been linked, for example, to poor motor
competency, rising levels of obesity, and other associated
societal factors (Haga, 2009; Okely & Booth, 2004).
Lubans et al. (2010) conducted a systematic review of the
literature examining the relationship between health
benefits and FMS in children and adolescents. The review
included studies investigating proficiency in movement
skills and physiological, psychological and behavioural
factors indicative of optimal health. The results showed
that children with higher levels of skill in fundamental
movement patterns also had higher cardiovascular fitness,
lower levels of obesity, increased global self-concept,
improved perception of physical competence and lower
levels of sedentary behaviour. However, Lubans et al.
(2010) conceded that their conclusions were tainted by
inconsistencies across the outcome measures used to assess
skill competence and the application of invalid methods to
measure movement deficiency.
Despite the apparent importance of attaining move-
ment competency in childhood for lifelong physical
activity (Barnett et al., 2016; Logan et al., 2015;
Whitehead, 2010), the measurement of movement com-
petence remains a complex issue due to its multidimen-
sional nature. At present, there is no gold standard
assessment tool for this fundamental attribute which is
 J.L. Ng: Mov Sport Sci/Sci Mot
further complicated with incongruent results found in
many studies investigating concurrent validity of various
MABs (Cools, De Martelaer, Samaey, & Andries, 2009;
Piek, Hands, & Licari, 2012; Wiart & Darrah, 2001).
1.2 Is there a need for classification of a
“fundamental” set of movements?
A set of nested movement patterns termed as FMS
have largely dominated empirical studies of movement
competence and are postulated to be “building blocks”
upon which more complex and mature movement patterns
are learnt in later life (Clark & Metcalfe, 2002). It has been
suggested that FMS do not occur naturally and need to be
taught as a foundational basis for the pursuit of more
complex physical and sporting activities (Barnett et al.,
2016; Clark & Metcalfe, 2002). FMS have typically been
classified into three distinct categories or constructs;
locomotion (e.g., running, jumping, sliding skipping, etc.),
object-control (e.g., throwing, catching, striking, etc.) and
stability skills (e.g. postural control; dynamic and static
balances) (Gallahue & Ozmun, 2006). These constructs
have provided the structure in the design of assessment
batteries that seek to describe FMS competence. Although
not all constructs are accounted for in assessments (see
Cools et al., 2009 for a review), the tested movement
patterns are often derive from “the list of movements” that
are considered a FMS. With empirical evidence prolifer-
ating a set of skills as fundamental and stressing its
importance, the classification of this select group of “basic”
movements is common practice across the world. For
example, attainment of FMS is identified as a physical
education objective and used as a performance indicator in
many countries such as Australia, Canada, England,
Singapore and USA (ACARA, 2016; Department for
Education (England), 2013; Department of Education
(Victoria), 1996; Ministry of Education (Ontario), 2015;
Ministry of Education (Singapore), 2016; SHAPE Amer-
ica – Society of Health and Physical Educators, 2013).
It is important to consider what evidence underpins
the FMS construct. Given the relative plasticity of the
neuromuscular system in early life, there is a critical
period of development in the human lifespan (i.e., from
approximately 5–12 years old) in which FMS are most
effectively learnt (Burton & Miller, 1998; Scott, 1962;
Viru et al., 1999). Furthermore, the development of vital
meta-cognitive skills during this critical period means
that children become “ready to learn” skills in a deep and
robust fashion (Anderson, Magill, & Thouvarecq, 2012).
According to Clark and Metcalfe (2002): “The overall
goal of this period is to build a sufficiently diverse motor
repertoire that will allow for later learning of adaptive,
skilled actions that can be flexibly tailored to different
and specific movement contexts” (p. 15). Stodden et al.
(2008) add “fuel to the fire” cautioning that if individuals
do not acquire FMS in childhood, then, they will
struggle to adapt and transfer these skills and may
consequently have limited opportunities for physical
activity later in life.
3
The consequence of identifying and classifying a select
group of movement patterns as fundamental or “building
blocks” for increased movement complexity invokes a
concept of discrete, stored skills being requisites for other
more sophisticated skills and that they are influence by
maturation (Clark, 2007). In essence, it suggests that it
would not be possible to perform a sequence of complex or
combined movement patterns should one not have
acquired mastery of the “select” fundamental movements.
The extent to which movement sequences reside within
the learner in the form of either discrete and/or stored
units (programmes) is an issue that has been, and
continues to be keenly debated for several decades (Ara ujo
& Davids, 2011; Meijer & Roth, 1988; Summers & Anson,
2009). Regardless, it will be assumed for the remainder of
this article that the veracity of the building block analogy
does not meaningfully impact on the FMS construct itself.
Barnett et al. (2016) suggest that in relation to FMS,
the term “fundamental” is subjective and depends on the
context in which it is used. Larsson and Quennerstedt
(2012) appear to concur proposing that FMS are
influenced by the environment that one is situated in.
The accepted FMS constructs of locomotion, object-
control and stability also downplay other seemingly
fundamental attributes of movement competence that
may define expertise such as fine-motor dexterity,
rhythmicity, bilaterality, and aquatic locomotion coordi-
nation (Bril et al., 2010; Button, 2016; Olivier, Hay, Bard,
& Fleury, 2007). Instead of combining separate FMS for
complex tasks, coordination and control of movement
emerge by individuals’ reorganising their movement
responses based upon their movement capabilities which
are stabilised under constraints (Faugloire, Bardy, &
Stoffregen, 2009; Orth, Davids, & Seifert, 2016). There-
fore, instead of a “fundamental” set of skills that need to be
developed, we propose instead that engagement with
movement experiences are more essential since move-
ments would emerge based upon the given constraints,
regardless of whether an individual had previously
acquired a “fundamental” set of movement skills. It is
interesting to observe that others are proposing to replace
the term “fundamental” with a more holistic term like
“foundational” (Hulteen et al., 2018).
2 The current state of movement
competence assessment
Given rising concerns over physical inactivity for
global health, it is perhaps not surprising that establishing
valid and reliable means to monitor movement compe-
tence such as FMS has received considerable attention in
recent decades (Cools et al., 2009). Assessing movement
competence requires a robust assessment of representative
tasks that allows an individual to demonstrate the relative
ease in which they self-organise to find the most stable
movement solution for task, environment and organismic
constraints. This would be somewhat possible in a
dynamic assessment in which a diverse range of movement
4 J.L. Ng: Mov Sport Sci/Sci Mot
action capabilities are presented to children. Importantly,
from an ecological dynamics perspective, the assessment of
movement competence requires consideration of the
complex coupling between perception and action (see
Fajen, Riley, & Turvey, 2009 for a review). A key concept
in the ecological dynamics approach is the theory of
affordances as proposed by Gibson (1977) in which the
opportunity to act is based upon the action-capabilities of
the individual and the constraints that are afforded to
them. The identification and selection of affordances is a
crucial aspect of movement competence and it should be
considered carefully in the design of movement assessment
tasks. For example, an assessment should not penalise an
individual based solely upon an ideal movement response
and the design of a movement task must present
affordances that are typical to real-world contexts.
In this section, we highlight the current state of
assessments of movement competence by outlining some
concerns with regards to present MABs. We begin by
discussing limitations that exist in establishing a “gold
standard” of assessment and then describe how recent
MABs are developing to address such concerns in relation
to movement competence assessment.
2.1 The conundrum (balance) of test objectives and
design
Ecological dynamics postulates that motor develop-
ment is a non-linear process and that altering constraints
can cause the emergence of movement patterns that may
not have been previous taught or learned by an individual
(Chow, Davids, Button, & Renshaw, 2015). Movement
competence is influenced by the variety of movement
experiences an individual has engaged in and interacted
with throughout their lives (Clark & Metcalfe, 2002).
Being able to perfectly replicate a static movement
pattern from repetitive practise formed by a narrow range
of constraints does not make one generally competent in
movement. Instead, competent movers are those who can
adapt, extend and refine movements through exploration
and engagement in a variety of movement experiences
(Clark, 2007). The more competent individuals are those
that can perceive affordances or opportunities to act based
upon the limits of their action-capabilities and will move in
ways that task success is always afforded (Fajen et al.,
2009). Perceptual-motor exploration provides opportuni-
ties for individuals to adapt based upon the perceived
affordances and potentially expands the action-capabili-
ties of individuals (Croft, Pepping, Button, & Chow, 2018;
Fajen et al., 2009). For example, in new or novel
experiences, the system (or individual) under self-
organisation adapts these movement concepts and the
resultant movement patterns gradually form attractor
states for the most stable movement solution.
Instead of stages or phases which suggests an age-
determined structure, we posit that movement compe-
tence exists across a spectrum that may be age-related but
not age-dependent (Clark & Metcalfe, 2002). Hence,
regardless of age, an individual’s movement competence
may exist at any point on the spectrum of movement
competence. Hypothetically, individuals who are at the
lower end of the spectrum may be those who have had
little sampling of varied movement experiences. These
children may need more practice to accurately estimate
their action-capabilities in order to be successful in a
movement task (Croft et al., 2018). At this end of the
spectrum, individuals would potentially require a longer
duration for assessment tasks as they explore, combine
and refine movement attributes to achieve the most
stable (economical and efficient) movement to achieve
outcome goals.
As we postulate movement competence existing on a
spectrum, one can appreciate the difficulties that devel-
opers of MABs have in distinguishing movement compe-
tence across the entire spectrum of the general population.
Unless objectively specified for an intended population,
developers have to ensure that assessment tasks in MABs
do not have floor and ceiling effects so individuals at
extreme ends of the spectrum can still be distinguished.
Furthermore, MABs have to accommodate the functional
variability that exists between individuals (Davids,
Bennett, & Newell, 2006). In order to accommodate for
the wide spectrum of movement competence regardless of
age, PLAYfun (CSIP, 2013) uses a visual analogue scaling
system for scoring assessments. Participants are scored
with a “mark” on a scale spanning low competence at one
extreme and what is thought of as an ideal execution of a
specified movement at the other extreme. Although,
PLAYfun still compares the movements of individuals to
an ideal form, Cairney et al. (2018) proposed that the use
of such a scaling system reduces ceiling effects and is more
sensitive in distinguishing competence as scoring variabil-
ity is increased since movement competence is not limited
to age criterions.
Empirical evidence suggests that children with motor
impairment have lower levels of movement competence
(Cantell, Smyth, & Ahonen, 1994; Emck, Bosscher, Beek,
& Doreleijers, 2009; Haga, 2009). Given the association of
movement competence and participation in physical
activity (Lai et al., 2014; Logan et al., 2015; Lubans
et al., 2010), it is not surprising that in recent times, many
motor development studies have focused on motor
deficiencies. Mirroring this trend, the primary objective
in many MABs is to detect individuals who may be
performing significantly behind age-related peers. De-
scription of movement competence often comes as a
secondary objective. The presence of an objective such as
detection of motor impairment unintentionally places a
constraint on the complexity of assessment tasks that are
designed and included in MABs. Consequently, assess-
ment tasks are often simplified and closed-skilled. The
reduction of task complexity creates ceiling effects that
potentially result in a lack of sensitivity in distinguishing
children performing at the higher end of the spectrum of
movement (Cairney et al., 2018; Logan, Barnett, Good-
way, & Stodden, 2017). These simplified assessment tasks
are artificial task representations that moderate the
perception-action coupling of a real-world or sporting
 J.L. Ng: Mov Sport Sci/Sci Mot
context. Hence, they are unlikely to describe the action
capabilities and movement competence of an individual
reliably.
To elaborate, artificial creation of an isolated move-
ment for assessment limits the multitude of affordances
that is perceived by the performer, thus, impeding upon
the action-capabilities that are possessed by the individual
(Fajen et al., 2009). Conversely, when a description of
general movement proficiency is a primary objective of an
MAB, sensitivity in detecting and distinguishing between
individuals performing at the lower end of the spectrum is
questioned (Burton & Miller, 1998; Wiart & Darrah, 2001;
Yoon et al., 2006). Accordingly, users of MABs need to be
clear in the purposes of assessment. Using a clinical tool
developed for identification of motor impairment on a
general cohort of typically developing children in order to
describe general movement competence should be avoided
yet it has been common practice in recent years.
Furthermore, the normative population during validation
studies of the MAB must be considered as not all MABs
have been validated for use in other countries. For
instance, normative data for the KTK needs to be
adjusted for different populations (Cools et al., 2009).
Additionally, in their comparison of the use of Movement-
ABC in children from different countries, van Waelvelde
et al. (2008) raised caution when they found that using the
USA norms in a Flemish population resulted in a lack of
sensitivity in detecting children being “at-risk” or having a
developmental delay. They cited the differences in
educational systems between Belgium and USA as a
possible explanation for the inconsistency. Moreover,
differences between children from Europe and USA were
lesser compared to the differences between children from
Asia and USA (van Waelvelde et al., 2008).
The motivation to assess movement competence for
the general population has arguably increased in recent
years. Due to this increasing need of MABs that are
specifically designed for the general cohort of typically
developing children, calls have been made for more
objective measures of movement competence for the
general population (Lander, Eather, Morgan, Salmon, &
Barnett, 2017; Longmuir et al., 2015). Recently, developed
MABs have sought to address the use of discrete sport-
related assessments tasks found in many validated MABs
(e.g. The Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency-2
(BOT-2); Bruininks, 2005; The test of gross motor
development-2 (TGMD-2); Ulrich, 2000; etc.). In these
newer MABs, opportunity for individuals to demonstrate
ability in combining and adapting movement in response
to task and environmental constraints have been given
priority. Importantly, through the use of non-linear
approaches, emergent movement solutions are not com-
pared against an “ideal movement pattern” (Lee et al.,
2014). Notably, the development of new MABs have
stemmed from the need to evaluate movement competence
based upon the physical education curricular of countries
whose objectives for assessments are to evaluate student
proficiency, attainment of learning outcomes and impor-
tantly, efficacy of physical education programs (ACARA,
5
2016; Department for Education (England), 2013; De-
partment of Education (Victoria), 1996; Ministry of
Education (Ontario), 2015; Ministry of Education
(Singapore), 2016; SHAPE America – Society of Health
and Physical Educators, 2013, 2019)
Thus far, we have highlighted awareness of the
primary objectives (detection of motor impairment or
general rating of competence) of MABs for these factors
poses implications on the validity of the assessment results
(Cools et al., 2009; Logan, Robinson, & Getchell, 2011).
Furthermore, MAB users on their part, must have a clear
purpose in the choice of using a particular MAB, so that
the specified objectives of the MAB matches the intended
purpose of assessment.
2.2 The problem with discrete tasks and assessed
constructs of movement
As mentioned earlier, although movement does not
only occur in sporting contexts, many MABs include tasks
that are heavily sports-oriented (e.g., kicking-football,
throwing-netball, basketball, frisbee and catching-basket-
ball, etc.). Consequently, the represented forms of sport-
related movement existing in MABs potentially ignore the
context in which many movements take place and the
situations that are afforded to the individual (Larsson &
Quennerstedt, 2012). Additionally, the artificial decon-
textualized instances of assessed movements are forced to
decouple from the multiple nested movements that are
typically seen when these sports-related skills are
performed in context (e.g. the ability of static throwing
to determine throwing proficiency without regard that in
reality, in any sport-context, throwing and its various
forms would occur fluidly (e.g. a throw executed
immediately after catching a ball or whilst on the move
to support an attack). The resulting throwing movement
would be further constrained with external factors such as
environmental (e.g., playing surface, weather conditions,
etc.) and task constraints (e.g., the presence of defenders,
size of the goal depending on the game, singles versus
doubles in a tennis, etc.). Seemingly, the decision of
assessing a closed-skill (i.e. a static throw) compared to
opened-skill task (i.e., the ability of using an appropriate
throw under the influence of constraints) is perhaps done
in the interest of maintaining reliability of MABs over the
need to objectively define movement (throwing) compe-
tence. In brief, decontextualizing movement alters and in
some cases, removes the affordances or the perception to
act for individuals. Therefore, whether the performance of
a closed-skill task or even several of them is representative
of an individual’s overall movement competence is
somewhat doubtful since it lacks ecological validity
(Longmuir et al., 2015).
Given that there is increased demand in assessing
general movement competence, then perhaps MAB
designers must consider designing tasks in which individ-
uals are able to demonstrate their ability in adapting
movement to suit dynamic constraints. Other than
traditional balance tasks of one-leg balance (static) and
6 J.L. Ng: Mov Sport Sci/Sci Mot
walking-along-a-line (dynamic), a more representative
measure of balance competence would be a combination of
the two; one where individuals are able to demonstrate
their balance competence in situations that forces a change
in an individual’s centre of mass. For example, consider
the task of traversing an unstable plank (akin to walking
along a low height see-saw or a balance/swinging bridge).
Based upon the individual’s postural control competence,
a more proficient individual would have lesser postural
sway which indirectly results in the plank moving less. At
the same time, should the balance plank be increasingly
wobbly, a competent “balancer” may tighten (flex) their
core under self-organisation in response to the dynamic
constraint. Indeed, a less competent individual would not
be able to refine their movements to accommodate the
changes in constraints and what is afforded to them.
As with the above example, humans as dynamical
systems most often perform movements that are in
response to interactions with the environment and others
with whom they interact with. In a sporting context,
movements are further influenced if individuals are
interacting with (cooperative) or against (opposing)
others. Studies have highlighted that affordances consis-
tently change when interacting with and against others
who may afford certain movement responses (Fajen et al.,
2009; Meerhoff, de Poel, Jowett, & Button, 2017; Schmidt,
Fitzpatrick, Caron, & Mergeche, 2011). This raises
another concern with MABs utilising discrete, closed-
skilled assessment tasks; the movement competence of an
individual in response to interactions with other individu-
als are ignored. While resource constraints may be a prime
reason for excluding this major influence on movement,
emerging technologies may offer a viable solution (Giblin
et al., 2014; Meerhoff et al., 2017; Ng, Button, Collins,
Giblin, & Kennedy, manuscript under review). Giblin
et al. (2014) highlight the potential of using low-cost
motion capture active video game systems such as the
Microsoft Kinect to assess movement competence. Addi-
tionally, the active video game assessment used in their
study was administered in 8 minutes per individual
(Giblin et al., 2014), which is considerably shorter in
duration as compared to other validated MABs (Cools
et al., 2009).
Another newly developed MAB, the general movement
competence assessment (GMCA) also utilises the Kinect
system. Ng et al. (manuscript under review) custom-
programmed a series of active video games which allowed
individuals to engage in dynamic movement assessment
tasks. The dynamic tasks allow individuals to demonstrate
competence in relation to changing task constraints, thus,
a competent individual would be able to adapt to the
changing task constraints quicker. Furthermore, the
authors utilised the aid of technology to lessen the
constraint of the need for highly-trained specialist for
test administration. Essentially, the GMCA test is run
using the Microsoft Kinect equipment which allows it to be
used in the general settings such as within the homes,
schools or sports clubs by any parent, teacher or coach.
Considering the importance of bimanual coordination
(i.e., proficiency at using both sides of the body
independently), the authors have integrated assessment
of that particular movement attribute in some of the
games.
Presently accepted FMS constructs are stability
(balance), object-control (manipulation) and locomotion
(Gallahue & Ozmun, 2006; Lubans et al., 2010). Recent
studies have notably proposed for more constructs to be
considered in order to better describe movement compe-
tence (Luz, Rodrigues, Almeida, & Cordovil, 2016; Ng
et al., manuscript under review; Rudd et al., 2015). For
example, in a recent validation study, Ng et al. (manu-
script under review) propose that in order to better
characterise movement competence, an additional con-
struct of dexterity should be considered on top of the
current three (i.e., locomotion, object-control and stabili-
ty constructs). These newly suggested constructs of
movement competence are attributed to the different
terms used (e.g. fine, gross motor; dexterity; ball skills;
coordination; locomotion, object-control; stability) to
describe movement competence (Barnett et al., 2016;
Logan et al., 2018). Faced with this complication, it is
debatable if we can indeed clearly define independent
constructs of movement competence especially when an
interdependence between constructs has been established
(Bril & Brenière, 1993; Clark, 2007; Davids et al., 2000;
Rudd et al., 2016). Although there have been efforts in the
development of MABs that seek to better describe
movement competence for the general cohort, at present,
the use of a combination of MABs may serve to better
describe the movement competence of an individual.
2.3 Movement combination, adaptability and
variability; key components to consider
We have proposed that movement competence exists
as a spectrum, thus, regardless of where an individual is
situated at on the proposed spectrum, the ability to self-
organise, through movement combination, adaptation
and refinement is necessary for daily living and even more
so for building expertise. The structure of many present
MABs isolate specific movements (e.g. static dribbling)
and do not allow individuals to demonstrate their ability
to combine various movements (e.g. dribbling on the
move; dynamic). Performance outcomes for process-
oriented MABs are based upon specified criterion
measures that typically describe characteristics of an
ideal, effective and efficient form (Larsson & Quenner-
stedt, 2012). These “ideal” forms of movement are often
based upon mature or expert-like performance of a
specified movement. Notably, the formulation of such
criteria ignores individual differences and functional
variability. Despite contemporary theories of motor
development acknowledging the functional role of move-
ment variability in aiding adaption of movement in
response to changing constraints of a dynamic environ-
ment (Chow, 2010; Davids, Button, & Bennett, 2008;
Stergiou & Decker, 2011), a produced movement that
deviates from the “expert or mature” form is consequently
 J.L. Ng: Mov Sport Sci/Sci Mot
rated by a process-based MAB as not meeting “standards
or norms”. The divergent movement is regarded as non-
functional “noise”, thus, penalising the performer. On the
contrary, the divergent movement ability test was
developed specifically to look that the ability of children
to perform divergent movements or to perform movements
that do not have an ideal pattern (Cleland & Gallahue,
1993). Zachopoulou and Makri (2005) investigated the
divergent movement ability of children and found that
older children demonstrated more effective movement
variations with no statistical difference between genders.
The results suggest that the ease of self-organisation and
its emergent movement solutions are dependent upon the
variety and amount of movement experiences that an
individual engages with, which would have a relationship
with increasing age.
Another issue with a fixation of an ideal or expert-like
form is that often, it is accompanied by demonstrations of
“the expected movement form” by the assessor. Concerns
have been raised with the use of demonstrations in MABs
(Giblin et al., 2014). Giblin et al. (2014) suggest that the
presence of demonstrations before an assessment promotes
a situation in which individuals, especially children who
are motivated to perform well in assessment situations,
demonstrate a movement form that is artificially organ-
ised to fit the “expected” form. In reality, the resultant
movements displayed may appear robotic or rigid. The
individuals may appear tensed and “frozen” as they seek to
reduce the degrees of freedom (Bernstein, 1967) to
replicate the expected movement (Ko, Challis, & Newell,
2003). Instead of describing movement competence, the
presence of demonstrations creates situations where
individuals are assessed on their ability to reproduce or
mimic “expected, ideal” movements which are not
representative of movement competence.
2.4 Movement competence is not sports skill
competence
There are strong links between movement competence,
physical activity and sports participation. Here, we
discuss how the established links have indirectly influ-
enced the design of MABs. Sport participation improves
adherence to lifelong physical activity (Kilpatrick, Hebert,
& Bartholomew, 2005; Tammelin et al., 2003) and it has
been suggested that movement competence is correlated
to physical activity behaviour (Lai et al., 2014; Logan
et al., 2015; Lubans et al., 2010). This creates a perception
that by being competent in sports, one would likely be
physically active. This is demonstrated by the policies of
many nations that promote sport as a means of increasing
physical activity (Eime et al., 2015; Kelly et al., 2010).
Importantly, sports-specific skill competence is not
representative of general movement competence (Button,
2016; Fajen et al., 2009). This current situation creates a
false logic where to have physically active individuals.
Individuals need to be continually assessed to monitor if
acquisition of “basic” sports skills have been learnt in order
to ascertain a physically active population.
7
Perhaps, one of the biggest limitations of many MABs
is the dominance and over-reliance of sport-related
movements to assess movement competence (Larsson &
Quennerstedt, 2012). Many MABs developed in North
America (e.g. BOT-2; Bruininks, 2005; TGMD-2; Ulrich,
2000; etc.) include sport-related assessment tasks in
contrast to MABs developed in Europe (e.g. Körperkoor-
dinationtest für Kinder; Kiphard & Schilling, 2007;
Motoriktest für vier- bis sechsjährige Kinder; Zimmer &
Volkamer, 1987, etc.) that tend to focus more on overall
coordination (Rudd et al., 2016). Sport-related assessment
tasks in MABs may place populations either at an
advantage or disadvantage, depending on the culture
and experience of the tested population (Cools et al.,
2009). For example, the two-handed striking task in the
TGMD-2 (Ulrich, 2000) replicates a baseball strike.
Importantly, movement is not confined to the realm of
sport but is an element of everyday life, movement
competence is not equivalent to specific sport-skill
competence. Thus, to use selective sports skills as a
descriptor of movement competence does not encapsulate
the broad definition of being competent in movement.
Moreover, the use of sport-related assessment tasks may
indirectly place certain populations at a disadvantage as
sport has traditionally been biased to gender, class and
race (Larsson & Quennerstedt, 2012; Wright & Burrows,
2006). At present, the use of neutral, non-sport-related,
generic movements as assessment tasks in MABs to
describe movement competence has not yet gained
momentum but should be duly considered (Giblin, Collins,
Button, & MacNamara, 2017; Longmuir et al., 2015).
3 Conclusion and implications
In the last few years, efforts have been made to address
the call for more objective assessments of movement
competence. The original purpose of most MABs was to
establish a minimal level of movement competence and
thereby enable clinicians to identify children that needed
remedial support. Whilst this endeavour was well-
intended and justifiable, it arguably downplays the
complete spectrum of movement competence by focusing
only on those at the lower end and at the same time being
less sensitive at tracking and describing expertise.
Interestingly in recent years, attempts to modify assess-
ment batteries to become more generic and sensitive to the
diverse contexts in which movements occur are beginning
to emerge (Cairney et al., 2018; Giblin et al., 2017; Ng
et al., manuscript under review; Rudd et al., 2016).
While acknowledging that our understanding of
movement competence is still evolving, we postulate that
there are critical areas of which have not been sufficiently
addressed by present MABs. For example, the ability to
perceive action capabilities of an individual has thus far
been neglected. The human being as an open, complex
system needs to respond to perturbations in their
environment and react accordingly (Davids et al., 2000).
Similarly, an individual with greater expertise will be able
8 J.L. Ng: Mov Sport Sci/Sci Mot
to adapt and move efficiently in response to changing
constraints. Less competent and inexperienced individu-
als would spend a longer duration in self-organisation of
body components through exploration in order to find a
stable state according to task demands. Assessing how
adaptable individuals are is a critical variable in
movement competence and may be a critical factor that
differentiates skill expertise (Seifert et al., 2013). Thus,
MABs should provide opportunities via dynamic assess-
ment tasks in order for a more objective measure of
movement competence. Furthermore, a critical part of
movement competence is the identification of affordan-
ces (opportunities to act) and these need to be better
represented by MABs. We feel that the theory of
affordances must be given critical consideration in the
design of assessments tasks.
At the present time, there is still arguably no gold
standard in the assessment of general movement compe-
tence of children, however, this article has highlighted
some studies to illustrate the significant strides being
made towards this ambitious objective. In recent years,
there are encouraging signs that researchers are becoming
cognisant of these core messages and that MABs are
evolving to fit the purpose for which they are truly
intended for. New MABs such as PLAYfun (Cairney et al.,
2018) and the GMCA (Ng et al., manuscript under review)
incorporate activities that require multiple nested move-
ments from across constructs to be combined and adapted
to the various constraints. Importantly, individual differ-
ences and functional variability are embraced (rather than
marginalised) in such tools. Furthermore, the primary
objective of such MABs is not to identify movement
dysfunction but instead to ascertain general movement
competence across a wide spectrum. The development of
low cost movement tracking technologies, such as those
used in active video games, may serve to reduce the
reliance on subjective assessments of movement by trained
observers in the future. We look forward to an exciting
period of development in this crucial field of motor
behaviour.
At this point in time, we suggest it may be premature
to argue that a high level of movement competency must
be developed during childhood for an individual to
eventually attain expert-like levels of performance.
Additionally, individuals who perform segregated FMS
well do not necessarily reside at the higher end of the
spectrum of movement competence if they cannot
combine, adapt and refine movement patterns in an
authentic context. The attainment of FMS during
childhood is certainly a noble and worthwhile aim, but
not necessarily the first “fundamental” step towards
expertise development.
Author Contributions
Both authors contributed equally to the writing of the
manuscript.
References
ACARA. (2016). Health and physical education: Sequence of
achievement. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Report-
ing Authority. Available from https://www.australiancurric
ulum.edu.au/umbraco/Surface/Download/Pdf?subject=
Health%20and%20Physical%20Education&type=F10.
Anderson, D.I., Magill, R.A., & Thouvarecq, R. (2012). Critical
periods, sensitive periods, and readiness for motor skill
learning. In N. Hodges & M.A. Williams (Eds.), Skill
acquisition in sport: Research, theory and practice
(pp. 211–228). London: Routledge.
Araujo, D., & Davids, K. (2011). What exactly is acquired during
skill acquisition? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 18(3–1),
7–23.
Barnett, L.M., Lai, S.K., Veldman, S.L.C., Hardy, L.L., Cliff, D.
P., Morgan, P.J., Zask, A., Lubans, D.R., Shultz, S.P., &
Ridgers, N.D. (2016). Correlates of gross motor competence in
children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Sports Medicine, 46(11), 1663–1688.
Barnett, L.M., Stodden, D., Cohen, K.E., Smith, J.J., Lubans, D.
R., Lenoir, M., Livonen, S., Miller, A.D., Laukkanen, A., &
Dudley, D. (2016). Fundamental movement skills: An
important focus. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
35(3), 219–225.
Bernstein, N. (1967). The co-ordination and regulation of
movements. New York: Pergamon.
Blair, S.N. (2009). Physical inactivity: The biggest public health
problem of the 21st century. British Journal of Sports
Medicine, 43(1), 1–2.
Bril, B., & Brenière, Y. (1993). Posture and independent
locomotion in early childhood: Learning to walk or learning
dynamic postural control? In G.J.P. Savelsbergh (Ed.), The
development of coordination in infancy (Vol. 97, pp. 337–
358). Amsterdam, AM: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
Bril, B., Rein, R., Nonaka, T., Wenban-Smith, F., & Dietrich, G.
(2010). The role of expertise in tool use: Skill differences in
functional action adaptations to task constraints. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor-
mance, 36(4), 825–839.
Bruininks, R.H. (2005). Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor
proficiency (2nd ed.). Minnesota, MN: AGS Publishing
Circle Pines.
Burton, A.W., & Miller, D.E. (1998). Movement skill assessment.
Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Button, C. (2016). Aquatic locomotion: Forgotten fundamental
movement skills? New Zealand Physical Educator, 49(1),
8–10.
Cairney, J., Veldhuizen, S., Graham, J.D., Rodriguez, C.,
Bedard, C., Bremer, E., & Kriellaars, D. (2018). A construct
validation study of PLAYfun. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 50(4), 855–862.
Cantell, M.H., Smyth, M.M., & Ahonen, T.P. (1994). Clumsi-
ness in adolescence: Educational, motor, and social outcomes
of motor delay detected at 5 years. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 11(2), 115–129.
Chow, J.Y. (2010). Insights from an emerging theoretical
perspective in motor learning for physical education. In Sport
science and studies in Asia: Issues, reflections and emergent
solutions (pp. 59–77). Singapore: World Scientific.
Chow, J.Y., Davids, K., Button, C., & Renshaw, I. (2015).
Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition: An introduction. New
York: Routledge.
Clark, J.E. (2007). On the problem of motor skill development.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 78(5),
39–44.
 J.L. Ng: Mov Sport Sci/Sci Mot
Clark, J.E., & Metcalfe, J.S. (2002). The mountain of motor
development: A metaphor. Motor Development: Research
and Reviews, 2, 163–190.
Cleland, F.E., & Gallahue, D.L. (1993). Young children’s
divergent movement ability. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
77(2), 535–544.
Cools, W., De Martelaer, K., Samaey, C., & Andries, C. (2009).
Movement skill assessment of typically developing pre-
school children: A review of seven movement skill assess-
ment tools. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 8(2),
154–168.
Croft, J.L., Pepping, G.-J., Button, C., & Chow, J.-Y. (2018).
Children’s perception of action boundaries and how it affects
their climbing behavior. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 166, 134–146.
CSIP. (2013). Canadian sport for life – Physical literacy assess-
ment for youth. Pacific, Victoria, B.C.: Canadian Sport
Institute – Pacific. Available from http://sportforlife.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2016/12/PLAYself_Workbook.pdf.
Davids, K., Bennett, S., Kingsbury, D., Jolley, L., & Brain, T.
(2000). Effects of postural constraints on children’s catching
behavior. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(1),
69–73.
Davids, K., Ara ujo, D., Shuttleworth, R., & Button, C. (2003).
Acquiring skill in sport: A constraints-led perspective.
International Journal of Computer Science in Sport, 41(11–
12), 5–16.
Davids, K., Bennett, S., & Newell, K.M. (Eds.). (2006).
Movement system variability. Champaign, IL: Human kinet-
ics.
Davids, K., Button, C., & Bennett, S. (2008). Dynamics of skill
acquisition: A constraints-led approach. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Department for Education, England. (2013). The national
curriculum in England. England: Department for Education,
Crown available from https://www.gov.uk/government/
publications/national-curriculum-in-england-physical-educa
tion-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-
physical-education-programmes-of-study.
Department of Education, Victoria. (1996). Fundamental motor
skills A manual for classroom teachers. Melbourne, Australia:
Community Information Service, Available from https://
www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/school/teachers/
teachingresources/social/physed/fmsteacher.pdf.
Eime, R., Harvey, J., Charity, M., Casey, M., Van Uffelen,
J., & Payne, W. (2015). The contribution of sport
participation to overall health enhancing physical activity
levels in Australia: A population-based study. BMC Public
Health, 15(1), 806.
Emck, C., Bosscher, R., Beek, P., & Doreleijers, T. (2009). Gross
motor performance and self-perceived motor competence in
children with emotional, behavioural, and pervasive develop-
mental disorders: A review. Developmental Medicine & Child
Neurology, 51(7), 501–517.
Fajen, B.R., Riley, M.A., & Turvey, M.T. (2009). Information,
affordances, and the control of action in sport. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 40(1), 79.
Faugloire, E., Bardy, B.G., & Stoffregen, T.A. (2009). (De)
stabilization of required and spontaneous postural dynamics
with learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 35(1), 170.
Gallahue, D., & Ozmun, J. (2006). Understanding motor
development; infants, children, adolescents, adults (6th
ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
9
Gérin-Lajoie, M., Ronsky, J.L., Loitz-Ramage, B., Robu, I.,
Richards, C.L., & McFadyen, B.J. (2007). Navigational
strategies during fast walking: A comparison between trained
athletes and non-athletes. Gait & Posture, 26(4), 539–545.
Giblin, S., Collins, D., & Button, C. (2014). Physical literacy:
Importance, assessment and future directions. Sports Medi-
cine, 44(9), 1177–1184.
Giblin, S., Collins, D.J., Button, C., & MacNamara, A. (2017).
Practical precursors to reconsidering objective for physical
activity in physical education. British Journal of Sports
Medicine, Available from bjsports-2017-098238.
Gibson, J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R.E. Shaw & J.
Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward
an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
Haga, M. (2009). Physical fitness in children with high motor
competence is different from that in children with low motor
competence. Physical Therapy, 89(10), 1089–1097.
Hulteen, R.M., Morgan, P.J., Barnett, L.M., Stodden, D.F., &
Lubans, D.R. (2018). Development of foundational move-
ment skills: A conceptual model for physical activity across
the lifespan. Sports Medicine, 48, 1–8.
Kelly, B., Baur, L.A., Bauman, A.E., Smith, B.J., Saleh, S.,
King, L.A., & Chapman, K. (2010). Health promotion
in sport: An analysis of peak sporting organisations’ health
policies. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 13(6),
566.
Kilpatrick, M., Hebert, E., & Bartholomew, J. (2005). College
students’ motivation for physical activity: Differentiating
men’s and women’s motives for sport participation and
exercise. Journal of American College Health, 54(2), 87–94.
Kiphard, E.J., & Schilling, F. (2007). Körperkoordinationstest
für kinder: KTK. Weinheim: Beltz-Test.
Ko, Y.-G., Challis, J.H., & Newell, K.M. (2003). Learning to
coordinate redundant degrees of freedom in a dynamic
balance task. Human Movement Science, 22(1), 47–66.
Kugler, P.N., Kelso, J.S., & Turvey, M.T. (1980). On the concept
of coordinative structures as dissipative structures: I.
Theoretical lines of convergence. In G.E. Stelmach & J.
Requin (Eds.), Tutoriale in motor behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 3–47).
Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Lai, S.K., Costigan, S.A., Morgan, P.J., Lubans, D.R., Stodden,
D.F., Salmon, J., & Barnett, L.M. (2014). Do school-based
interventions focusing on physical activity, fitness, or
fundamental movement skill competency produce a sustained
impact in these outcomes in children and adolescents? A
systematic review of follow-up studies. Sports Medicine, 44
(1), 67–79.
Lander, N., Eather, N., Morgan, P.J., Salmon, J., & Barnett, L.
M. (2017). Characteristics of teacher training in school-based
physical education interventions to improve fundamental
movement skills and/or physical activity: A systematic
review. Sports Medicine, 47(1), 135–161.
Larsson, H., & Quennerstedt, M. (2012). Understanding
movement: A sociocultural approach to exploring moving
humans. Quest, 64(4), 283–298.
Lee, M.C.Y., Chow, J.Y., Komar, J., Tan, C.W.K., & Button, C.
(2014). Nonlinear pedagogy: An effective approach to cater
for individual differences in learning a sports skill. PloS one, 9
(8), e104744.
Logan, S.W., Robinson, L.E., & Getchell, N. (2011). The
comparison of performances of preschool children on two
motor assessments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 113(3),
715–723.
10 J.L. Ng: Mov Sport Sci/Sci Mot
Logan, S.W., Kipling Webster, E., Getchell, N., Pfeiffer, K.A., &
Robinson, L.E. (2015). Relationship between fundamental
motor skill competence and physical activity during child-
hood and adolescence: A systematic review. Kinesiology
Review, 4(4), 416–426.
Logan, S.W., Barnett, L.M., Goodway, J.D., & Stodden, D.F.
(2017). Comparison of performance on process- and product-
oriented assessments of fundamental motor skills across
childhood. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(7), 634–641. Doi:
10.1080/02640414.2016.1183803.
Logan, S.W., Ross, S.M., Chee, K., Stodden, D.F., & Robinson,
L.E. (2018). Fundamental motor skills: A systematic review
of terminology. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(7), 781–796.
Longmuir, P.E., Boyer, C., Lloyd, M., Borghese, M.M., Knight,
E., Saunders, T.J., Boiarskaia, E., Zhu, W., & Tremblay, M.
S. (2015). Canadian agility and movement skill assessment
(CAMSA): Validity, objectivity, and reliability evidence for
children 8–12 years of age. Journal of Sport and Health
Science, 767–778.
Lubans, D.R., Morgan, P.J., Cliff, D.P., Barnett, L.M., & Okely,
A.D. (2010). Fundamental movement skills in children and
adolescents. Sports Medicine, 40(12), 1019–1035.
Luz, C., Rodrigues, L.P., Almeida, G., & Cordovil, R. (2016).
Development and validation of a model of motor competence
in children and adolescents. Journal of Science and Medicine
in Sport, 19(7), 568–572.
Meerhoff, L.A., de Poel, H.J., Jowett, T.W.D., & Button, C.
(2017). Influence of gait mode and body orientation on
following a walking avatar. Human Movement Science, 54,
377–387. Doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2017.06.005.
Meijer, O.G., & Roth, K. (Eds). (1988). Complex movement
behaviour: The motor-action controversy (Vol. 50). Amster-
dam: North-Holland.
Ministry of Education, Ontario. (2015). The Ontario curriculum,
Grades 1–8: Health and physical education. Ontario, Canada:
Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Available from http://program.
yourschools.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/The-Ontario-
Curriculum-Grades-1-8_English_BOOKMARKS_AO
DA_Ma.pdf.
Minsitry of Education, Singapore. (2016). Physical education
teaching & learning syllabus: Primary, secondary & pre-
university. Singapore: Student Development Curriculum
Division. Available from https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/
default-source/document/education/syllabuses/physical-
sports-education/files/physical_education_syllabus_2014.
pdf.
Newell, K.M. (1986). Constraints on the development of
coordination. In M.G. Wade & H.T.A. Whiting (Eds.),
Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and
control (pp. 341–360). Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff.
Ng, J.L., Button, C., Collins, D., Giblin, S., & Kennedy, G.
(manuscript under review). Assessing the internal reliability
and construct validity of the new general movement compe-
tence assessment for children.
Okely, A.D., & Booth, M.L. (2004). Mastery of fundamental
movement skills among children in New South Wales:
Prevalence and sociodemographic distribution. Journal of
Science and Medicine in Sport, 7(3), 358–372.
Olivier, I., Hay, L., Bard, C., & Fleury, M. (2007). Age-related
differences in the reaching and grasping coordination in
children: Unimanual and bimanual tasks. Experimental Brain
Research, 179(1), 17–27.
Orth, D., Davids, K., & Seifert, L. (2016). Coordination in
climbing: Effect of skill, practice and constraints manipula-
tion. Sports Medicine, 46(2), 255–268.
Piek, J.P., Hands, B., & Licari, M.K. (2012). Assessment of
motor functioning in the preschool period. Neuropsychology
Review, 22(4), 402–413.
Rudd, J., Butson, M., Barnett, L., Farrow, D., Berry, J.,
Borkoles, E., & Polman, R. (2016). A holistic measurement
model of movement competency in children. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 34(5), 477–485.
Rudd, J.R., Barnett, L.M., Butson, M.L., Farrow, D., Berry, J.,
& Polman, R.C. (2015). Fundamental movement skills are
more than run, throw and catch: The role of stability skills.
PloS one, 10(10), e0140224.
Schmidt, R.C., Fitzpatrick, P., Caron, R., & Mergeche, J. (2011).
Understanding social motor coordination. Human Movement
Science, 30(5), 834–845. Doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2010.05.014.
Scott, J.P. (1962). Critical periods in behavioral development.
Science, 138(3544), 949–958.
Seifert, L., Button, C., & Davids, K. (2013). Key properties of
expert movement systems in sport. Sports Medicine, 43(3),
167–178.
SHAPE America – Society of Health and Physical Educators.
(2013). Grade-level outcomes for K-12 physical education.
Reston, VA: Society of Health and Physical Educators
America. Available from https://www.shapeamerica.org/
standards/pe/upload/Grade-Level-Outcomes-for-K-12-
Physical-Education.pdf.
SHAPE America – Society of Health and Physical Educators.
(2019). PE Metrics – Assessing student performance using the
national standards & grade-level outcomes for K-12 physical
education (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Stergiou, N., & Decker, L.M. (2011). Human movement
variability, nonlinear dynamics, and pathology: Is there a
connection? Human Movement Science, 30(5), 869–888. Doi:
10.1016/j.humov.2011.06.002.
Stodden, D.F., Goodway, J.D., Langendorfer, S.J., Roberton, M.
A., Rudisill, M.E., Garcia, C., & Garcia, L.E. (2008). A
developmental perspective on the role of motor skill
competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship.
Quest, 60(2), 290–306.
Summers, J.J., & Anson, J.G. (2009). Current status of the
motor program: Revisited. Human Movement Science, 28(5),
566–577.
Tammelin, T., Näyhä, S., Laitinen, J., Rintamäki, H., &
Järvelin, M.-R. (2003). Physical activity and social status
in adolescence as predictors of physical inactivity in
adulthood. Preventive Medicine, 37(4), 375–381. Doi:
10.1016/S0091-7435(03)00162-2.
Tremblay, M., & Lloyd, M. (2010). Physical literacy measure-
ment: The missing piece. Physical and Health Education
Journal, 76(1), 26–30.
Ulrich, D. (2000). TGMD 2 – Test of gross motor development
examiner’s manual. Austin, Texas: PRO-ED.
van Waelvelde, H., Peersman, W., Lenoir, M., Engelsman, B.C.
S., & Henderson, S.E. (2008). The movement assessment
battery for children: Similarities and differences between 4-
and 5-year-old children from Flanders and the United States.
Pediatric Physical Therapy, 20(1), 30–38.
Viru, A., Loko, J., Harro, M., Volver, A., Laaneots, L., & Viru,
M. (1999). Critical periods in the development of performance
capacity during childhood and adolescence. European
Journal of Physical Education, 4(1), 75–119.
Warren, W.H. (1984). Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of
stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 10(5), 683.
Whitehead, M. (2010). Physical literacy: Throughout the
lifecourse. London: Francis Group.
 J.L. Ng: Mov Sport Sci/Sci Mot 11

Wiart, L., & Darrah, J. (2001). Review of four tests of gross
motor development. Developmental Medicine & Child
Neurology, 43(4), 279–285.
Wright, J., & Burrows, L. (2006). Re-conceiving ability in
physical education: a social analysis. Sport, Education and
Society, 11(3), 275–291.
Yoon, D.Y., Scott, K., Hill, M.N., Levitt, N.S., & Lambert,
E.V. (2006). Review of three tests of motor proficiency
in children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 102(2),
543–551.
Zachopoulou, E., & Makri, A. (2005). A developmental
perspective of divergent movement ability in early young
children. Early Child Development and Care, 175(1), 85–95.
Zimmer, R., & Volkamer, M. (1987). Motoriktest für vier-bis
sechsjährige Kinder: Mot 4-6; Manual. Weinheim: Beltz-
Test.

Cite this article as: Ng JL & Button C (2018) Reconsidering the fundamental movement skills construct: Implications for
assessment. Mov Sport Sci/Sci Mot, https://doi.org/10.1051/sm/2018025