13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
bs_bs_banner

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research doi: 10.1111/jir.12618

1163
VOLUME 63 PART 9 pp 1163–1179 SEPTEMBER 2019

Systematic Review

Effects of motor skill interventions on fundamental

movement skills in children and adolescents with
intellectual disabilities: a systematic review
C. Maïano,1,2 O. Hue3 & J. April4
1 Cyberpsychology Laboratory, Department of Psychoeducation and Psychology, Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO),
Gatineau, Québec, Canada
2 Department of Psychoeducation and Psychology, Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO|Campus Saint-Jérôme), Saint-Jérôme,
Québec, Canada
3 Department of Physical Activity Sciences, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada
4 Department of Education Sciences, Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO|Campus Saint-Jérôme), Saint-Jérôme, Québec,
Canada

Abstract press or published in English in a peer-reviewed

Background Children and adolescents with
intellectual disabilities (ID) are characterised by
deficits in fundamental movement skills (FMS). In
youth with typical development, motor skill
interventions have been recognised as an efficient
means to improve FMS. However, the effects of these
interventions among youth with ID have not yet been
systematically reviewed.
Purpose The purpose of the present systematic
review was to summarise the findings from studies
pertaining to the effects of motor skill interventions
designed to improve FMS in children and adolescents
with ID.
Method A systematic literature search (without year
restriction) was performed in 12 databases. Studies in
Correspondence: Prof Christophe Maïano, Department of
Psychoeducation and Psychology, Université du Québec en
Outaouais (UQO|Campus Saint-Jérôme), 5 rue Saint-Joseph,
Saint-Jérôme, Québec J7Z 0B7, Canada (e-mail: christophe.
maiano@uqo.ca).
journal were included if: (1) participants were youth
with ID aged 5 to 22; (2) motor skill interventions
aimed to improve one or several FMS; and (3) they
were experimental, quasi-experimental or pre-
experimental. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database
scale was used to assess the quality of the studies.
Results Through the search strategy, 1083 articles
were identified, and 14 studies published between
1969 and 2018 met the inclusion criteria. In studies
with children, motor skill interventions successfully
improved balance skills and overall FMS, whereas
mixed and inconclusive results were found for
locomotor skills. In studies with adolescents, motor
skill interventions were shown to successfully improve
balance skills. However, none of the motor skill
interventions reviewed focused on locomotor and
object control skills.
Conclusions The reviewed motor skill interventions
were effective in improving balance skills in both
children and adolescents with ID as well as overall
FMS in children with ID. Conversely, the effects of

© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
1164
C. Maïano, O. Hue & J. April • Fundamental movement skills and intervention
motor skill interventions targeting locomotor and
object control skills remain unclear. Therefore, given
the relatively small number of studies and their
limitations, the present findings need to be
interpreted with caution, and further rigorous studies
are necessary.
Keywords balance skills, locomotor skills, motor
skills, object control skills, stability skills
Fundamental movement skills (FMS) represent the
‘building blocks’ of specific movement skills necessary
for being physically active, participating in games or
practicing sports (Barnett et al. 2016a; Logan et al.
2018). Three categories of FMS are commonly
proposed in the literature (Barnett et al. 2016a; Logan
et al. 2018): (1) ball skills, manipulative skills, or
object control skills (e.g. catching a ball, striking and
throwing); (2) locomotor skills (e.g. walking,
jumping and hopping); and (3) balance or stability
skills (e.g. bending and one-foot balance). These
categories are usually assessed with a unidimensional
(i.e. measuring only one of the FMS) or
multidimensional (e.g. measuring several FMS
dimensions) movement/motor skill test. These
tests/batteries focus on the quality (i.e. process
oriented) and/or the outcome (product-oriented
method) of the movement skill (Barnett et al. 2016a;
Logan et al. 2018).
Youth with intellectual disabilities (ID) presents
significant limitations in both intellectual and
adaptive behaviour functioning, which lead to
disabilities in conceptual, social and practical
adaptive skills (Schalock et al. 2007). In the
literature, it is well recognised that children and
adolescents with ID tend to present deficits in FMS
(Lloyd 2016; Gkotzia et al. 2017). More specifically,
youth with ID tend to present significantly lower
fundamental movement (Zikl et al. 2013), locomotor
(Sloan 1951; Simons et al. 2008; Hartman et al. 2010;
Westendorp et al. 2011; Rintala & Loovis 2013; Zikl
et al. 2013) and object control (Simons et al. 2008;
Hartman et al. 2010; Westendorp et al. 2011; Rintala
& Loovis 2013; Zikl et al. 2013) skills compared with
children and adolescents with typical development
(TD).
Given that FMS are fundamental to participation in
various physical activities or sports (Barnett et al.
2016b; Logan et al. 2018), these deficits may make
© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
VOLUME 63 PART 9 SEPTEMBER 2019
youth with ID less willing or less likely to be physically
active. This constitutes a serious health concern given
that youth with ID are known to be less physically
active than youth with TD (for a review, see Hinckson
& Curtis 2013) and that a large proportion of them are
overweight or obese (for a meta-analysis, see Maïano
et al. 2016). The greater the deficit in FMS, the less
physically active these youth will be, and the higher
their risk of being overweight/obese. Therefore,
improving FMS among youth with ID could
represent a critical issue related to enhancing
participation in physical activities or sports and to
limit health concerns.
Meta-analyses concerning children and adolescents
with TD have shown that motor skill interventions are
efficient in improving FMS (Logan et al. 2012;
Morgan et al. 2013; Engel et al. 2018). These
interventions consist in proposing developmentally
specific and appropriate planned motor activities
(Logan et al. 2012). However, the efficacy of motor
skill interventions among youth with ID is unknown.
Indeed, to our knowledge, no scholars have yet
summarised and systematically reviewed the effects of
these interventions on FMS in youth with ID. Such
syntheses are essential for providing valuable
information to help professionals design effective
motor skill interventions for improving FMS among
youth with ID. The purpose of this article was to
conduct a systematic review of experimental (EXP),
quasi-experimental (QE) or pre-experimental (PRE-
EXP) studies pertaining to the effects of motor skill
interventions on FMS of youth with ID aged 5 to 22.
Findings from the reviewed studies were synthesised
according to the sample age category (i.e. children,
adolescents or children–adolescents).
Method
Search strategy
The protocol of this systematic review was not
registered. The relevant studies were identified
through a systematic electronic search performed on
12 March 2018 (without year restriction), in three
databases provided by Proquest (PsycARTICLES,
PsycINFO and Psychology database), in seven
databases provided by ESBCO (Academic Search
Complete, CINAHL Plus with Full-Text, Education
Source, ERIC, Medline with Full-Text, Psychology
 13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research VOLUME 63 PART 9 SEPTEMBER 2019
1165
C. Maïano, O. Hue & J. April • Fundamental movement skills and intervention

and Behavioral Sciences Collection and SocINDEX), studies were excluded if samples or subsamples of
and in Scopus and SPORTDiscus with Full-Text. youth with ID had a specific physical characteristic
The potentially relevant studies were identified in (e.g. cerebral palsy).
the aforementioned databases using the following
three groups (Gr.) of search terms: ID (Gr. 1), FMS Type of interventions
(Gr. 2) and intervention (Gr. 3). These terms were
Studies were included if one of the main objectives of
researched in the title and abstract of the article in
the motor skill interventions was to improve one or
press or published by the journals indexed in the
several FMS in youth with ID. These interventions
databases. All the search terms used, as well as the
could be held in any environment (school, home,
strategy used in Scopus, are presented in Sections S1
community, institution, etc.), and their effects could
and S2 of the supporting information. Finally,
be compared or not with control groups comprising
potentially eligible studies were also searched for by
youth with ID.
hand in the reference lists of the studies and through
forward citation tracking (via Scopus and Google
Type of outcomes
scholar) of the studies included in this systematic
review. Studies were included if FMS were measured using a
motor/movement skill assessment test/battery. This
Eligibility of identified studies and inclusion criteria test/battery could have assessed FMS in general
and/or at least one of the following three categories
The first two authors assessed the eligibility of
of FMS: (1) object control, ball skills, or
potentially relevant studies following the
manipulative skills; (2) locomotor skills; or (3)
recommendations of the preferred reporting items for
balance or stability skills. Nevertheless, in these
systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement
motor/movement skill assessment tests/batteries, the
(Liberati et al. 2009) and based on the inclusion
overall score of FMS or the score of the specific
criteria presented below. They first separately
FMS category should have been estimated using at
assessed the title abstract of the studies found and
least two items. Therefore, studies were excluded if
then separately assessed the eligibility of the
FMS in general or a specific FMS category were
previously retained studies based on their full texts. In
measured with only one item. Finally, studies were
case of discrepancies, these authors discussed their
excluded if the authors measured physical fitness
selections to reach a consensus.
(e.g. endurance, strength, flexibility, etc.) or used
motor/movement skill assessment tests/batteries
Type of participants
measuring fine motor skills only (e.g. manual
Studies were included if they comprised a sample of dexterity, bilateral coordination and agility) or both
school-aged youth with ID (i.e. 5 to 22 years old) with fine motor skills and FMS items.
known (i.e. Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome,
Williams syndrome, Prader-Willi, etc.) and unknown Types of studies
aetiology. Therefore, samples or subsamples of lower
Studies with an EXP (i.e. an intervention group is
(2–5 years) or higher (>22 years) age ranges were
compared to a control group, and participants were
excluded. Additionally, studies relying on mixed age
randomly assigned to one group), QE (i.e. the same
samples (i.e. infants and children with ID;
comparison without full random assignment) or PRE-
adolescents and adults with ID) were included if the
EXP (i.e. a single group pretest/post-test) design were
sample mean age was either higher than 5 or lower
included. However, non-original studies (e.g. reviews
than 18 with an age range of 5–22 years, or if results
and theoretical papers) and case studies were
were provided separately for participants at least
excluded.
5 years old or under 22 years old. Moreover, studies
involving mixed samples of youth with ID and
Type of publications
participants with TD or mixed samples with
disabilities were included if results were presented Studies were included if they were in press or
separately for subsamples of youth with ID. Finally, published in English in a peer-reviewed journal.

© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
1166
C. Maïano, O. Hue & J. April • Fundamental movement skills and intervention
Information extracted and quality assessment of the
reviewed studies
Information extracted
As presented in Tables 1–4, the first two authors
separately extracted the following types of
information for each relevant study: (1) country and
geographic region (as defined by the World Health
Organization); (2) design; (3) recruitment setting; (4)
sample age category; (5) ID level; (6) characteristics
of the motor skill intervention and control groups; (7)
characteristics of the motor skill intervention
programme; (8) description of the control condition;
(9) characteristics of FMS measures; and (10)
statistical group differences in FMS measures. Both
authors reviewed this information and resolved any
discrepancies though discussion.
Quality assessment
The first two authors independently assessed the
method quality for the relevant studies using the
French–Canadian version of the Physiotherapy
Evidence Database scale (PEDro; Brosseau et al.
2015). This scale, developed by Moseley et al. (1999)
based on the Delphi list of Verhagen et al. (1998),
presents good reliability, factor validity and
convergent validity (e.g. Maher et al. 2003; de Morton
2009; Macedo et al. 2010). It comprises 11 items
measuring the following criteria (Moseley et al. 2002):
(1) specification of the eligibility criteria for
participation; (2) random allocation of participants in
groups; (3) concealed allocation; (4) similarity
between groups in relevant variables at pretest; (5)
blinding of participants; (6) blinding of the
investigators administering the intervention; (7)
blinding of the assessors measuring the dependent
variables; (8) proportion of participants having at least
one dependent variable measured; (9) participants’
compliance with the intervention; (10) statistical
comparisons between groups reported for at least one
dependent variable; and (11) point measures and
measures of variability provided for at least one
dependent variable. A score of 1 (yes) was awarded
each time a criterion was met, and a total score was
calculated by summing up the results obtained from
items 2 to 11 (Moseley et al. 2002). Studies with a
total score ≥ 6 were considered ‘high quality’, whereas
those having a total score ≤ 5 were considered ‘low
© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
VOLUME 63 PART 9 SEPTEMBER 2019
quality’ (Moseley et al. 2002; Maher et al. 2003).
These ratings were then reviewed by both authors,
and discrepancies were resolved by the last author.
Results
Selection of the studies
As presented in Fig. 1, a total of 2770 articles were
identified by the systematic electronic search. After
the deletion of duplicates, 1083 articles were left.
Afterward, 1024 of these articles were excluded based
on the assessment of their title abstract because they
did not meet the inclusion criteria. Moreover, the
analysis of the 59 full text articles led to the exclusion
of 45 additional ones (see Fig. 1 for the reasons and
Data S1 for their full references). Finally, 14 studies,
published between 1969 and 2018, met the inclusion
criteria. Their characteristics are presented in
Tables 1 and 2.
Characteristics of the reviewed studies
Sample characteristics and design
As shown in Table 1, five of the 14 studies on children
and adolescents with ID were conducted in America,
four in the Eastern Mediterranean area, four in
Europe and one in South-East Asia. Nine of the 14
studies were EXP (64.3%), three were QE (21.4%)
and two were pre-experimental (14.3%). A total of
464 children and adolescents with ID (Mtotal = 18.6,
SD = 11.1, sample range = 5 to 40; 53.6% boys) were
involved in these studies. Studies with children in-
cluded 363 participants (Mtotal = 19.1, SD = 12.3,
sample range = 5 to 40; 54.3% boys) and studies with
adolescents included 101 participants (Mtotal = 16.8,
SD = 6.4, sample range = 11 to 25; 51.7% boys).
Participants were recruited mainly in special schools
or in institutions. Ten of the 14 studies reported the
participants’ ID levels (Table 1). Studies on children
were composed mainly of participants with mild ID
(6/11), and studies on adolescents were all composed
of participants with mild and moderate ID (3/3).
Intervention programme and control condition
As shown in Table 2, balance and/or strength
exercises were used in three of the studies on children
(Abdel Rahman 2010; Dehghani & Gunay 2015; Borji
et al. 2018), whereas the others used an adapted play
 13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research VOLUME 63 PART 9 SEPTEMBER 2019
1167
C. Maïano, O. Hue & J. April • Fundamental movement skills and intervention

Figure 1 Results of search based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement (Liberati et al. 2009).
Note. FMS = fundamental movement skills; ID = intellectual disabilities.

training (Malekpour et al. 2012), handball techniques
(Mehralitabar et al. 2015), computerised games (i.e.
Xbox® 360 Kinect; Reis et al. 2017), a developmental
physical education programme or a therapeutic
sensorimotor training programme (Montgomery &
Richter 1977), a physical development programme
(Chasey & Wyrick 1971), an intensive motor skills
training programme (Ross 1969), a physical therapy
programme (Popa & Dobrescu 2017) and vestibular
stimulation exercises (Carter et al. 2018). These
interventions lasted from 6 weeks to 1 year and a half
(Mweeks = 17.5, SDweeks = 23.6), and most training
sessions were held three times a week (Mtimes = 3,
SDtimes = 1) and lasted from 20 to 60 min
(Mtimes = 39.5, SDtimes = 16.2). Additionally, the
person who delivered the intervention (e.g. physical
education students) was mentioned in only one study
(Chasey & Wyrick 1971). Finally, in seven of the
studies, children with ID involved in the control
condition followed the conventional physical therapy
programme, regular school schedule/usual activities
or a physical education programme.
In studies on adolescents (Table 2), the
intervention focused mainly on balance and/or
strength exercises (Gupta et al. 2011; Kubilay et al.
2011) or on hemsball game skills (Işık & Zorba 2018).

© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 1168

John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Table 1 Characteristics of studies on children and adolescents included in the systematic review

Study Country (Geographic region) Design Recruitment setting Sample age category ID level

Abdel Rahman (2010) Egypt (EM) QE DS charitable association CHILD Mild-Mod

Tunisia (EM) EXP NUAMI CHILD Mild
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

Borji et al. (2018)

Carter et al. (2018)‡ USA (AM) PRE-EXP SEP CHILD NM
Chasey and Wyrick (1971) USA (AM) EXP SS CHILD Mild
Dehghani and Gunay (2015) Turkey (EUR) EXP SS CHILD Mild
Malekpour et al. (2012) Iran (EM) EXP SS CHILD Mild
Mehralitabar et al. (2015) Iran (EM) QE SS CHILD Mild
Montgomery and Richter (1977) USA (AM) QE School CHILD NM
Popa and Dobrescu (2017) Romania (EUR) PRE-EXP NM CHILD NM
Reis et al. (2017) Brazil (AM) EXP Institution APAE CHILD NM
Ross (1969) USA (AM) EXP RS CHILD Mild

Gupta et al. (2011) India (SEA) EXP School ADOS Mild-Mod

Işık and Zorba (2018) Turkey (EUR) EXP School ADOS Mild-Mod
Kubilay et al. (2011) Turkey (EUR) EXP SS ADOS Mild-Mod
C. Maïano, O. Hue & J. April • Fundamental movement skills and intervention

Note. ADOS = adolescents; AM = America; APAE = Associação de pais e amigos dos excepcionais/Association of Parents and Friends of Exceptional Children; CHILD = children; EM = Eastern Mediterranean;
EUR = Europe; EXP = experimental; ID = intellectual disabilities; Mod = moderate; NM = not mentioned; PRE-EXP = pre-experimental; QE = quasi-experimental; RS = regular school; SD = standard deviation;
SEA = South East Asia; SEP = summer enrichment programme; SS = special school.
†
This study comprises two intervention groups: balance and strength.
VOLUME

‡
Only the information from group 1 was used, given that participants from group 2 were excluded due to a mean age above 18 years.
§
The author provided only the mean and standard deviation of age for the overall sample (intervention and control).
¶
This study comprises two intervention groups: developmental physical education and sensorimotor training.

© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
63 PART 9 SEPTEMBER 2019

13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 1169

John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Table 1 (Continued)

Intervention group Control group

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

Study Sample size (N) % of boys Age range Age (mean ± SD) Sample size (N) % of boys Age range Age (mean ± SD)

Abdel Rahman (2010) 15 40 10–12 10.9 15 46.7 11–13 11.6

Borji et al. (2018) 10/10† NM NM 11.4 ± 1.2/12.3 ± 1† 10 NM NM 11.5 ± 0.8
Carter et al. (2018)‡ 10 60 5–14 9.9 ± 2.8 - - - -
Chasey and Wyrick (1971) 27 NM 6–12 NM 20 NM 6–12 NM
Dehghani and Gunay (2015) 11 NM 8–13 10.3 ± 1.76 11 NM 8–13 10.1 ± 0.89
Malekpour et al. (2012) 40 50 5–13 11.1 ± 2.21§ 40 50 5–13 11.1 ± 2.21§
Mehralitabar et al. (2015) 12 NM 8–13 10.3 ± 1.75 12 NM 8–13 10.4 ± 1.84
Montgomery and Richter (1977) 25/25¶ 56/76¶ 5–12 NM 25 60 5–12 NM
Popa and Dobrescu (2017) 13 53.8 6–14 NM - - - -
Reis et al. (2017) 7 NM NM 9 ± 2.5 5 NM NM 8 ± 2.5
Ross (1969) 20 45 4–10 7.70 ± 1.63 20 60 4–9 7.51 ± 1.66
C. Maïano, O. Hue & J. April • Fundamental movement skills and intervention

Gupta et al. (2011) 12 66.7 11–14 13.5 11 54.5 10–14 13

Işık and Zorba (2018) 25 NM 12–16 NM 25 NM 12–16 NM
Kubilay et al. (2011) 14 35.7 NM 14.3 ± 5.13 14 50 NM 16.7 ± 5.91
VOLUME

© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
63 PART 9 SEPTEMBER 2019

13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 1170

Table 2 Description of intervention, control condition and fundamental movement skills measures in studies on children and adolescents

John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Intervention programme

Follow-up
Sample age Type of motor skill Length duration Duration Frequency
Study category intervention (weeks/years) (weeks) (minutes) (days/week) Facilitator
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

Abdel Rahman (2010)
Borji et al. (2018)
Carter et al. (2018)†
Chasey and Wyrick (1971)
Dehghani and Gunay (2015)
Malekpour et al. (2012)
Mehralitabar et al. (2015)
Montgomery and Richter (1977)
Popa and Dobrescu (2017)
Reis et al. (2017)
Ross (1969)
CHILD Wii Fit balance game training 6 wks - 60 2 NM
CHILD Strength (group 1) and balance (group 2) 8 wks - 45 3 NM
exercises
CHILD Vestibular stimulation exercises 6 wks - 20 2 NM
CHILD Physical development programme 15 wks 60 5 PE students
CHILD Balance exercises 10 wks - 40 2 NM
CHILD Adapted play training NM - 45 NM NM
CHILD Handball techniques 6 wks - 55 3 NM
CHILD DPE programme (group 1) and therapeutic NM - 30 3 NM
sensorimotor training programme (group 2)
CHILD Physical therapy programme 1.5 yrs - NM NM NM
CHILD Xbox® 360 Kinect (Kinect adventures: River 4 - 20 4 NM
Rush® and Hall of Ricochets® games)
CHILD Intensive motor skills training programme 24 wks - 20–25 3 NM
C. Maïano, O. Hue & J. April • Fundamental movement skills and intervention

Gupta et al. (2011) ADOS Strength and balance exercises 6 wks - NM 3 NM

Işık and Zorba (2018) ADOS Hemsball game skills 12 wks - 60 3 NM
Kubilay et al. (2011) ADOS Swiss ball exercises 8 wks - 30 3 NM
VOLUME

Note. ADOS = adolescents; BBS = Berg Balance Scale; BOTMP = Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency; BOTMP-2 = Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition; BST = Basic Skills
Test; CHILD = children; DPE = developmental physical education; FMSTB = Frostig Movement Skills Test Battery; FMS = fundamental movement skills; GMFM = Gross Motor Function Measure; LOMDS = Lincoln
Oseretsky Motor Development Scale; LOTMP = Lincoln Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency; NM = not mentioned; PBS = Pediatric Balance Scale; PE = physical education; wks = weeks; yrs = years.
†
Only the information from group 1 have been used, given that participants from group 2 were excluded due to mean age higher than 18 years.

© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
63 PART 9 SEPTEMBER 2019

13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 1171

John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Table 2 (Continued)

FMS measures

Study Control condition Tests Dimensions

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

Abdel Rahman (2010) Conventional physical BOTMP Balance skills

therapy programme
Borji et al. (2018) NM BBS Balance skills
Carter et al. (2018)† - BOTMP-2 Balance skills
Chasey and Wyrick (1971) Usual activities LOMDS Balance skills (general static coordination),
Locomotor skills (general dynamic coordination)
Dehghani and Gunay (2015) Regular school schedule BOTMP Balance skills
Malekpour et al. (2012) NM LOTMP Balance skills
Mehralitabar et al. (2015) Usual activities BOTMP Balance skills
Montgomery and Richter (1977) PE programme FMSTB FMS
Popa and Dobrescu (2017) - GMFM Balance skills (standing), locomotor skills
(walking, running, jumping)
Reis et al. (2017) Usual activities PBS Balance skills
C. Maïano, O. Hue & J. April • Fundamental movement skills and intervention

Ross (1969) PE programme BST FMS

Gupta et al. (2011) Regular school activities BOTMP Balance skills

Işık and Zorba (2018) NM BOTMP-2 Balance skills
VOLUME

Kubilay et al. (2011) PE programme PBS Balance skills

© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
63 PART 9 SEPTEMBER 2019

13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
1172
C. Maïano, O. Hue & J. April • Fundamental movement skills and intervention
These interventions lasted from 6 to 12 weeks
(Mweeks = 8.7, SDweeks = 3.1), and training sessions
were held three times a week and lasted from 30 to
60 min (Mtimes = 45, SDtimes = 21.2). Additionally, no
information was provided regarding the person who
delivered the intervention, and adolescents with ID
involved in the control condition followed the regular
school activities or a physical education programme.
Measures and fundamental movement skill dimensions
As shown in Table 2, nine of the 11 studies on
children focused on balance skills measured with
either the Berg Balance Scale (Berg et al. 1989), the
Pediatric Balance Scale (Franjoine et al. 2003), the
gross motor function measure (Russell et al. 1989) or
different versions of the Oseretsky’s test: the
Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency
(Bruininks 1978; Bruininks & Bruininks 2005) and
the Lincoln-Oseretsky Motor Development Scale or
Test of Motor Proficiency (Sloan 1951). Additionally,
in two of these studies, overall FMS were measured
with the basic skills test (Ross 1969) or the Frostig
Movement Skills Test Battery (Orpet 1972).
Moreover, in two studies, locomotor skills were also
measured with the Lincoln-Oseretsky Motor
Development Scale or the gross motor function
measure. Finally, studies on adolescents focused
mainly on balance skills measured with different
versions of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor
Proficiency or the Pediatric Balance Scale.
Effects of motor skill interventions
Children samples
The detailed results from the studies on children are
presented in Table 3. Studies showed that the
intervention groups have significantly higher post-test
balance skills (Chasey & Wyrick 1971; Abdel Rahman
2010; Malekpour et al. 2012; Reis et al. 2017) and
overall FMS (Ross 1969) than the control groups.
Additionally, the intervention group reported a
significantly higher pretest to post-test change value in
overall FMS than the control group (Montgomery &
Richter 1977). Nevertheless, no significant post-test
differences in locomotor skills were reported between
intervention and control groups (Chasey & Wyrick
1971).
© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
VOLUME 63 PART 9 SEPTEMBER 2019
Finally, as shown in Table 3, a significant
improvement (from pretest to post-test) in balance skills
(Chasey & Wyrick 1971; Abdel Rahman 2010;
Dehghani & Gunay 2015; Mehralitabar et al. 2015;
Popa & Dobrescu 2017; Borji et al. 2018) and overall
FMS (Ross 1969) was reported in the intervention
groups. However, one study reported no significant
change in balance skills for the intervention group
(Carter et al. 2018).
Findings on locomotor skills were mixed. Indeed,
one study (Popa & Dobrescu 2017) showed a
significant improvement (from pretest to post-test) in
the intervention group, whereas another one (Chasey
& Wyrick 1971) showed no change in locomotor skills
(from pretest to post-test) in the intervention group.
However, either no changes (from pretest to post-test)
or a significant decrease (from pretest to post-test) in
balance skills (Chasey & Wyrick 1971; Abdel Rahman
2010; Dehghani & Gunay 2015; Mehralitabar et al.
2015; Borji et al. 2018), locomotor skills (Chasey &
Wyrick 1971) or in overall FMS (Ross 1969) were
reported for the control groups.
Adolescent samples
As shown in Table 3, no significant post-test difference
in balance skills was found between intervention and
control groups in the study of Kubilay et al. (2011),
whereas Işık and Zorba (2018) and Gupta et al. (2011)
reported a significantly higher post-test balance skills
value or pretest to post-test change value in balance skills
in the intervention groups than in the control groups,
respectively. Finally, a significant pretest to post-test
improvement in balance skills was reported in the
intervention group by Işık and Zorba (2018) and in
both the intervention and the control groups by
Kubilay et al. (2011).
Quality assessment of the reviewed studies
Table 4 presents the results of the quality assessment
of the reviewed studies. Two (18.2%) of the 11 studies
on children and all (100%) studies on adolescents had
a high-quality rating. The PEDro’s total mean scale
score for the studies of children with ID was 3.82/10
(SD = 1.72; range = 1–6), and 6/10 (SD = 0) for
studies of adolescents with ID. In studies of children
with ID, the most frequently met criteria were the
point measures and measures of variability being
provided for at least one dependent variable (10/11,
 1173

Table 3 Synthesis of results from the studies on children and adolescents

Results

Sample age IG (pretest CG (pretest IG vs. CG IG vs. CG IG vs. CG

Study category vs. post-test) vs. post-test) (pretest) (post-test) (pre-post change)

John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Abdel Rahman (2010) CHILD BAL: Improvement BAL: NS (P > 0.05) BAL: NS BAL: IG > CG -
(P < 0.05) (P > 0.05) (P < 0.05)
Borji et al. (2018) CHILD BAL: Improvement BAL: NS (P > 0.05) BAL: NS NM -
(P < 0.05) (P > 0.05)
Carter et al. (2018)‡ CHILD BAL: NS (P > 0.05) - - - -
Chasey and Wyrick (1971) CHILD BAL: Improvement BAL: Decrease NM BAL: IG > CG -
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

(P < 0.05) (P < 0.05) (P < 0.05)

LOCO: NS (P > 0.05) LOCO: NS (P > 0.05) LOCO: IG = CG
(P > 0.05)
Dehghani and Gunay (2015) CHILD BAL: Improvement BAL: NS (P > 0.05) BAL: NS NM -
(P < 0.05) (P > 0.05)
Malekpour et al. (2012) CHILD NM NM NM BAL: IG > CG -
(P < 0.05)
Mehralitabar et al. (2015) CHILD BAL: Improvement BAL: NS (P > 0.05) NM NM -
(P < 0.05)
Montgomery and CHILD NM NM NM NM FMS: IGs† > CG
Richter (1977) (P < 0.05)
Popa and Dobrescu (2017) CHILD BAL: Improvement - - - -
(P < 0.05)
LOCO: Improvement
(P < 0.05)
Reis et al. (2017) CHILD - - BAL: NS BAL: IG > CG
C. Maïano, O. Hue & J. April • Fundamental movement skills and intervention

(P > 0.05) (P < 0.05)

Ross (1969) CHILD FMS: Improvement FMS: NS (P > 0.05) FMS: NS FMS: IG > CG -
(P < 0.05) (P > 0.05) (P < 0.05)

Gupta et al. (2011) ADOS NM NM NM NM BAL: IG > CG

VOLUME

(P < 0.05)
Işık and Zorba (2018) ADOS BAL: Improvement BAL: NS (P > 0.05) BAL: NS BAL: IG > CG
(P < 0.05) (P > 0.05) (P < 0.05)
Kubilay et al. (2011) ADOS BAL: Improvement BAL: Improvement BAL: NS BAL: NS -
(P < 0.05) (P < 0.05) (P > 0.05) (P > 0.05)

Note. ADOS = adolescents; BAL = balance skills; CHILD = children; CG = control group; FMS = overall score of fundamental movement skills; IG = intervention group; LOCO = locomotor skills; NM = results
were not mentioned; NS = non-significant change; > means better results; = means no differences.
†
Only the total mean change score was used.
‡

© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
63 PART 9 SEPTEMBER 2019

Only the information from group 1 was used, given that participants from group 2 were excluded due to a mean age above 18 years.

13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research VOLUME 63 PART 9 SEPTEMBER 2019
1174
C. Maïano, O. Hue & J. April • Fundamental movement skills and intervention

Table 4 Quality assessment of the reviewed studies on children and adolescents

Sample age Total

Study category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 score† Quality

Abdel Rahman (2010) CHILD 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 5 Low

Borji et al. (2018) CHILD 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 5 Low
Carter et al. (2018) CHILD 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 2 Low
Chasey and Wyrick (1971) CHILD 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 4 Low
Dehghani and Gunay (2015) CHILD 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 5 Low
Malekpour et al. (2012) CHILD 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 3 Low
Mehralitabar et al. (2015) CHILD 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 1 Low
Montgomery and Richter (1977) CHILD 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 2 Low
Popa and Dobrescu (2017) CHILD 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 3 Low
Reis et al. (2017) CHILD 〇 〇 〇 〇 6 High
Ross (1969) CHILD 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 6 High

Gupta et al. (2011) ADOS 〇 〇 〇 〇 6 High

Işık and Zorba (2018) ADOS 〇 〇 〇 〇 6 High
Kubilay et al. (2011) ADOS 〇 〇 〇 〇 6 High

Note. ADOS = adolescents; CHILD = children; 1 = eligibility criteria specified; 2 = random allocation of participants in groups; 3 = concealed allocation;
4 = similarity between groups in relevant variables at pretest; 5 = blinding of participants; 6 = blinding of investigators administering the intervention;
7 = blinding of assessors measuring the dependent variables; 8 = proportion of participants having at least one dependent variable measured;
9 = participants’ compliance with the intervention; 10 = between-group statistical comparisons reported for at least one dependent variable; 11 = point
measures and measures of variability are provided for at least one dependent variable. = 1 point; 〇 = 0 point.
†
Sum of items 2 through 11.

item 11), the proportion of participants having at least
one dependent variable measured (8/11, item 8),
participants’ compliance with the assigned
intervention (8/11, item 9), specification of the
eligibility criteria (7/11, item 1), the random allocation
of participants in groups (6/11, item 2), similarity
between the groups in relevant variables at pretest (5/
11, item 4) and between-group statistical comparisons
reported for at least one dependent variable (5/11,
item 10). However, none of the studies met the
criteria related to concealed allocation (item 3) or
blinding of participants (item 5), investigators (item
6) or assessors (item 7).
In studies of adolescents with ID, the most
frequently met criteria were specification of the
eligibility criteria (3/3, item 1), random allocation of
participants in groups (3/3, item 2), proportion of
participants having at least one dependent variable
measured (3/3, item 8), participants’ compliance with
the assigned intervention (3/3, item 9), between-
group statistical comparisons reported for at least one
dependent variable (3/3, item 10), point measures and
measures of variability provided for at least one
dependent variable (3/3, item 11), similarity between
the groups in relevant variables at pretest (2/3, item 4)
and concealed allocation (1/3, item 3). However, none
of the studies met the criteria related to blinding of
participants (item 5), investigators (item 6) or
assessors (item 7).
Discussion
This systematic review summarised the findings of 14
studies examining the effects of motor skill
interventions on FMS in children and adolescents
with ID. It appears that the focus was on children with
ID and on balance skills in most of the reviewed
studies. Findings among children with ID (mostly
mild ID) provide strong support for the effectiveness
of motor skill interventions on balance skills. More
specifically, these findings suggest that children with
ID experienced a significant increase in their balance
skills during motor skill interventions. These positive
effects of motor skill interventions are consistent with
empirical research concerning the effects of motor
skill interventions on balance skills in youth with TD

© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
1175
C. Maïano, O. Hue & J. April • Fundamental movement skills and intervention
(Logan et al. 2012). Such results have been obtained
when researchers used general motor skill
programmes (e.g. adapted play training and physical
development programme), balance and strength
exercises, computerised games, physical therapy
programme, vestibular or sensorimotor exercises or
specific sport techniques (handball). Furthermore, in
the present review, the interventions found to be
effective lasted from 6 weeks to 1 year and a half, with
three to five sessions of 45 to 60 min per week.
Consequently, the findings seem to hold for all types
of motor skill interventions (i.e. type, length, training
session duration and frequency). Moreover, these
findings are strengthened by the fact that 56% of these
studies were experimental (i.e. participants were
randomly assigned to one group), and balance skills
were measured with specific tests (e.g. Berg Balance
Scale and Pediatric Balance Scale) or motor
assessment tools (e.g. Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of
Motor Proficiency and Lincoln Oseretsky Motor
Development Scale).
Secondly, only two of the studies on children with
ID pertained to the effects of motor skill interventions
on overall FMS. Findings showed that a
developmental physical education programme, a
therapeutic sensorimotor training and an intensive
motor skills training were significantly effective in
improving overall FMS among children with ID.
These findings were consistent with those found in
meta-analyses among youth with TD (Logan et al.
2012; Morgan et al. 2013; Engel et al. 2018). The
reviewed interventions were effective when their
duration was of 24 weeks, and the training sessions
were held three times a week for a duration of 20–
30 min. The present findings are consistent even
though these studies followed different designs (e.g.
experimental or quasi-experimental) and FMS were
measured using different motor assessment tools (e.g.
basic skills test and Frostig Movement Skills Test
Battery).
Thirdly, two studies on children concerned the
effects of motor skill interventions on locomotor
skills, and their findings were mixed. One showed that
the 15-week physical development programme
(60 min, five times a week) examined was ineffective
in improving locomotor skills in children with ID.
Inversely, one showed that a 1.5-year physical therapy
programme was effective in improving locomotor
skills in children with ID. Furthermore, none of the
© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
VOLUME 63 PART 9 SEPTEMBER 2019
reviewed studies pertained to the effects of motor skill
interventions on object control skills. Consequently, it
is currently unclear whether the effects of motor skill
interventions are truly effective in improving
locomotor and object control skills among children
with ID. This should be more systematically
examined in further research.
Finally, balance skills were the focus of only three
studies with adolescents. All these experimental
studies showed that their motor skill interventions
(i.e. balance and strength exercises or hemsball game
skills) lasting from 6 to 12 weeks, with three sessions
of 30 to 60 min per week, were effective for improving
balance skills of adolescents with mild to moderate
ID. Nevertheless, these results should be interpreted
with caution given the small number of studies.
Additionally, none of the reviewed studies pertained
to the effects of motor skill interventions on
locomotor and object control skills. Therefore, the
effects of motor skill interventions on balance skills
and locomotor-object control skills among
adolescents with ID are unknown and should be more
thoroughly examined in future research.
Implications for practice
FMS are significantly correlated with high levels of
physical activity and fewer health concerns among
youth with TD (Lubans et al. 2010; Holfelder &
Schott 2014; Logan et al. 2015; Barnett et al. 2016b;
Hulteen et al. 2018), and FMS interventions
improved FMS proficiency (Tompsett et al. 2017).
Given that children and adolescents with ID tend to
present deficits in FMS, which may persist as the
youth develop, improvement of FMS components
(i.e. locomotion skills, object skills and balance skills)
should be targeted in the interventions.
The present results indicate that improvement of
balance skills in children and adolescents with ID
should be targeted by professionals through general
motor skill programmes, physical therapy
programmes, balance and strength exercises,
vestibular sensorimotor exercises or specific sport
techniques. More specifically, to be effective, these
interventions should last at least 6 weeks with at least
three sessions per week of between 30 and 60 min.
These findings show also that improvement of
FMS in general in children with ID should be
targeted by professionals through developmental

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
1176
C. Maïano, O. Hue & J. April • Fundamental movement skills and intervention
physical education programmes, therapeutic
sensorimotor training or intensive motor skills
training. Furthermore, these interventions should last
at least 24 weeks with at least three sessions per week
of 20 to 30 min.
Nevertheless, because very few studies in the review
achieved high quality ratings, the current
recommendations should be taken with some caution
and confirmed by future more rigorous research.
Strength, limitations and directions for future
studies
To our knowledge, this systematic review is the first
where the effects of motor skill interventions on FMS
of children and adolescents with ID are specifically
examined. However, although the present findings
were promising, they should be viewed as preliminary
and considered with caution given several limitations.
Firstly, the generalisability of the present findings can
be questioned given that the reviewed studies were
conducted mostly among children and adolescents
with a mild ID recruited in special schools or
institutions and living in America, Europe or the
Eastern Mediterranean. It is thus difficult to conclude
that the present findings may be generalised to chil-
dren and adolescents with a moderate or severe ID
recruited in self-contained or regular classes and to
other regions and cultures (e.g. African and South-
East Asian). Therefore, more research on FMS
among children and adolescents with different levels
of ID recruited in different settings should be con-
ducted in different regions and cultures.
Secondly, there are too few studies on overall FMS,
locomotor skills and object control skills of children
and adolescents with ID to draw firm conclusions
concerning the effectiveness of motor skill
interventions. Therefore, these FMS should be more
systematically examined in future research.
Thirdly, only two of the reviewed studies
(Montgomery & Richter 1977; Borji et al. 2018)
pertained to the effects of various types of motor skill
interventions on FMS in youth with ID.
Consequently, the most effective type of motor skill
intervention for improving FMS in this population
remains unclear. This issue should be more
thoroughly examined in further studies where various
motor skill interventions programmes are compared.
Findings from these studies will help physical
© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
VOLUME 63 PART 9 SEPTEMBER 2019
educators (adapted or regular) and physical therapists
to make informed decisions about the most effective
types of motor skill interventions.
Fourthly, only one of the reviewed studies (Chasey
& Wyrick 1971) provided information on the
professional who delivered the intervention.
Additionally, none of these studies provided
information about the setting of the motor skill
interventions, the adaptation of the intervention
during the trial or the strategies used to ensure the
fidelity of the intervention. It is therefore impossible
to determine which characteristics and contextual
features of the motor skill interventions are
fundamental for improving FMS in children and
adolescents with ID. This issue should be more
systematically investigated in future studies to help
physical educators (adapted or regular) and physical
therapists to translate these evidence-based practices
in the field.
Fifthly, the reviewed motor skill interventions were
mostly of a short length, with a similar duration and
frequency of the training sessions. Furthermore, none
of the reviewed studies included a follow-up of the
youth with ID after the motor skill interventions.
Therefore, the best length and training dose (session
duration and frequency), as well as the long-term
sustainability of the effectiveness of motor skill
interventions, remain unknown. These issues should
be further investigated in future studies.
Finally, the method quality had a low rating in most
of the reviewed studies. More specifically, in 36% of
the studies, the participants were not randomly
allocated into groups. Furthermore, in most of the
studies, insufficient information was provided on the
between-group similarity in relevant variables at
pretest, and the criterion of reporting at least one
dependent variable was not satisfied for the between-
group statistical comparisons. Additionally, none met
the criteria related to concealed allocation and
blinding of participants, investigators and assessors.
Consequently, the improvement in method quality of
motor skill interventions among youth with ID should
be a priority in future studies.
Conclusion
The present results show that the reviewed motor skill
interventions were effective in improving balance in
both children and adolescents with ID as well as

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
1177
C. Maïano, O. Hue & J. April • Fundamental movement skills and intervention
overall FMS in children with ID. Conversely, it is
currently unclear whether the effects of motor skill
interventions are truly effective in improving
locomotor and object control skills in children and
adolescents with ID. Therefore, given the relatively
small number of studies and their limitations, the
present findings need to be interpreted with caution,
and the effects of motor skill interventions on FMS in
children and adolescents with ID should be
systematically investigated in future more rigorous
studies.
Conflict of Interest
The authors report no conflict of interests.
Source of funding
The preparation of this systematic review was
supported by grants from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada (430-2012-
0091 and 435-2014-0909) awarded to the first and
second authors.
References
Abdel Rahman S. (2010) Efficacy of virtual reality-based
therapy on balance in children with Down syndrome.
World Applied Sciences Journal 10, 254–61.
Barnett L. M., Stodden D., Cohen K. E., Smith J. J., Lubans
D. R., Lenoir M. et al. (2016a) Fundamental movement
skills: an important focus. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education 35, 219–25.
Barnett L. M., Lai S. K., Veldman S. L., Hardy L. L., Cliff
D. P., Morgan P. J. et al. (2016b) Correlates of gross
motor competence in children and adolescents: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine 46,
1663–88.
Berg K., Wood-Dauphinee S., Williams J. & Gayton D.
(1989) Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary
development of an instrument. Physiotherapy Canada 41,
304–11.
Borji R., Sahli S., Baccouch R., Laatar R., Kachouri H. &
Rebai H. (2018) An open-label randomized control trial of
hopping and jumping training versus sensorimotor
rehabilitation programme on postural capacities in
individuals with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied
Research in Intellectual Disabilities 31, 318–23.
Brosseau L., Laroche C., Sutton A., Guitard P., King J.,
Poitras S. et al. (2015) Une version franco-canadienne de
la Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale:
L’Échelle PEDro. Physiotherapy Canada 67, 232–9.
© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
VOLUME 63 PART 9 SEPTEMBER 2019
Bruininks R. H. (1978) Bruininks Oseretsky Test of Motor
Proficiency. American Guidance Service, Circle Pines,
MN.
Bruininks R. H. & Bruininks B. D. (2005) Test of Motor
Proficiency, 2nd edn. NCS Pearson, Minneapolis, MN.
Carter K., Sunderman S. & Burnett S. W. (2018) The effect
of vestibular stimulation exercises on balance,
coordination, and agility in children with Down
syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience
6, 28–32.
Chasey W. C. & Wyrick W. (1971) Effects of a physical
developmental program on psychomotor ability of
retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency
75, 566–70.
Dehghani M. & Gunay M. (2015) The effect of balance
training on static and dynamic balance in children with
intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Environmental and
Biological Science 5, 527–31.
Engel A. C., Broderick C. R., van Doorn N., Hardy L. L. &
Parmenter B. J. (2018) Exploring the relationship between
fundamental motor skill interventions and physical activity
levels in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Sports Medicine 48, 1845–57.
Franjoine M. R., Gunther J. S. & Taylor M. J. (2003)
Pediatric Balance Scale: a modified version of the Berg
Balance Scale for the school-age child with mild to
moderate motor impairment. Pediatric Physical Therapy 15,
114–28.
Gkotzia E., Venetsanou F. & Kambas A. (2017) Motor
proficiency of children with autism spectrum disorders
and intellectual disabilities: a review. European
Psychomotricity Journal 9, 46–69.
Gupta S., Rao B. K. & Kumaran S. D. (2011) Effect of
strength and balance training in children with Down’s
syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical
Rehabilitation 25, 425–32.
Hartman E., Houwen S., Scherder E. & Visscher C. (2010)
On the relationship between motor performance and
executive functioning in children with intellectual
disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 54,
468–77.
Hinckson E. A. & Curtis A. (2013) Measuring physical
activity in children and youth living with intellectual
disabilities: a systematic review. Research in Developmental
Disabilities 34, 72–86.
Holfelder B. & Schott N. (2014) Relationship of
fundamental movement skills and physical activity in
children and adolescents: a systematic review. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise 15, 382–91.
Hulteen R. M., Morgan P. J., Barnett L. M., Stodden D. F.
& Lubans D. R. (2018) Development of foundational
movement skills: a conceptual model for physical activity
across the lifespan. Sports Medicine 48, 1533–40.
Işık M. & Zorba E. (2018) The effects of hemsball on the
motor proficiency of students with intellectual disabilities.
International Journal of Developmental Disabilities Advance

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
1178
C. Maïano, O. Hue & J. April • Fundamental movement skills and intervention
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/
20473869.2018.1488534
Kubilay N. S., Yildirim Y., Kara B. & Harutoglu-Akdur H.
(2011) Effect of balance training and posture exercises on
functional level in mental retardation. Fizyoterapi
Rehabilitasyon 22, 55–64.
Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche
P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. (2009) The PRISMA
statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-
analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions:
explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 6, 1–6.
Lloyd M. (2016) Physical activity of individuals with
intellectual disabilities: challenges and future directions.
Current Developmental Disorders Reports 3, 91–3.
Logan S. W., Robinson L. E., Wilson A. E. & Lucas W.
A. (2012) Getting the fundamentals of movement: a
meta-analysis of the effectiveness of motor skill
interventions in children. Child: Care, Health and
Development 38, 305–15.
Logan S. W., Webster K. E., Getchell N., Pfeiffer K. A. &
Robinson L. E. (2015) Relationship between fundamental
motor skill competence and physical activity during
childhood and adolescence: a systematic review.
Kinesiology Review 4, 416–26.
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, 781–96.
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,
1019–1035.
Macedo L. G., Elkins M. R., Maher C. G., Moseley A. M.,
Herbert R. D. & Sherrington C. (2010) There was
evidence of convergent and construct validity of
Physiotherapy Evidence Database quality scale for
physiotherapy trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 63,
920–5.
Maher C. G., Sherrington C., Herbert R. D., Moseley A. M.
& Elkins M. (2003) Reliability of the PEDro scale for
rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Physical
Therapy 83, 713–21.
Maïano C., Hue O., Morin A. J. S. & Moullec G. (2016)
Prevalence of overweight and obesity among children
and adolescents with intellectual disabilities: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews 17,
599–611.
Malekpour M., Isfahani A. S., Amiri S., Faramarzi S.,
Heidari T. & Shahidi M. A. (2012) The effect of adapted
play training on motor development of students with
intellectual disabilities. International Journal of
Developmental Disabilities 58, 120–7.
Mehralitabar H., Mirjalali F., Minoei A. & Fadaee E. (2015)
The impact of handball techniques on improving gross
motor skills in educable mentally retarded children.
International Journal of Sport Studies 5, 1243–8.
© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
VOLUME 63 PART 9 SEPTEMBER 2019
Montgomery P. & Richter E. (1977) Effect of sensory
integrative therapy on the neurometer development of
retarded children. Physical Therapy 57, 799–806.
Morgan P. J., Barnett L. M., Cliff D. P., Okely A. D., Scott
H. A., Cohen K. E. et al. (2013) Fundamental movement
skill interventions in youth: a systematic review and meta-
analysis. Pediatrics 132, 1361–83.
de Morton N. A. (2009) The PEDro scale is a valid measure
of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a
demographic study. The Australian Journal of Physiotherapy
55, 129–33.
Moseley A. M., Maher C., Herbert R. D. & Sherrington C.
(1999) Reliability of a scale for measuring the
methodological quality of clinical trials. In: Proceedings of
th
the VII Cochrane Colloquium, p. 39. Cochrane center,
Rome, Italy.
Moseley A. M., Herbert R. D., Sherrington C. & Maher C.
G. (2002) Evidence for physiotherapy practice: a survey of
the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). The
Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 48, 43–9.
Orpet R. E. (1972) Frostig Movement Skills Test Battery.
Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Popa C. E. & Dobrescu T. (2017) The effectiveness of
therapeutic physical exercises in improving balance and
coordination in children with Down syndrome. Romanian
Journal for Multidimensional Education/Revista Romaneasca
pentru Educatie Multidimensionala 9, 589–102.
Reis J. R. G., Neiva C. M., Pessoa Filho D. M., Ciolac E.
G., Verardi C. E. L., da Cruz Siqueira L. O. et al.
(2017) Virtual reality therapy: motor coordination and
balance analysis in children and teenagers with
Down syndrome. European Journal of Human Movement
38, 53–67.
Rintala P. & Loovis E. M. (2013) Measuring motor skills in
Finnish children with intellectual disabilities. Perceptual
and Motor Skills 116, 294–303.
Ross S. A. (1969) Effects of an intensive motor skills training
program on young educable mentally retarded children.
American Journal of Mental Deficiency 73, 920–6.
Russell D. J., Rosenbaum P. L., Cadman D. T., Gowland
C., Hardy S. & Jarvis S. (1989) The gross motor function
measure: a means to evaluate the effects of physical
therapy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 31,
341–52.
Schalock R. L., Luckasson R. A. & Shogren K. A. (2007)
The renaming of mental retardation: understanding the
change to the term intellectual disability. Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities 45, 116–24.
Simons J., Daly D., Theodorou F., Caron C., Simons J. &
Andoniadou E. (2008) Validity and reliability of the
TGMD-2 in 7–10-year-old Flemish children with
intellectual disability. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly
25, 71–82.
Sloan W. (1951) The Lincoln-Oseretsky Motor
Development Scale. Genetic Psychological Monographs 51,
183–252.
 13652788, 2019, 9, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12618 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [04/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research VOLUME 63 PART 9 SEPTEMBER 2019
1179
C. Maïano, O. Hue & J. April • Fundamental movement skills and intervention

Tompsett C., Sanders R., Taylor C. & Cobley S. (2017) disabilities. International Journal of Social, Human Science
Pedagogical approaches to and effects of fundamental and Engineering 7, 2789–95.
movement skill interventions on health outcomes: a
systematic review. Sports Medicine 47, 1795–819.
Accepted 6 March 2019
Verhagen A. P., de Vet H. C., de Bie R. A., Kessels A. G.,
Boers M., Bouter L. M. et al. (1998) The Delphi list: a
criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical Supporting Information
trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by
Delphi consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 51, Additional Supporting Information may be found
1235–41. online in the supporting information tab for this
Westendorp M., Houwen S., Hartman E. & Visscher C. article.
(2011) Are gross motor skills and sports participation
related in children with intellectual disabilities? Research in Data S1. Supporting information
Developmental Disabilities 32, 1147–53.
Zikl P., Holoubková N., Karásková H. & Veselíková T.
(2013) Gross motor skills of children with mild intellectual

© 2019 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd