Quantitative analysis reveals significant impacts of gadget usage and BMI on motor competence in adolescents, indicating intervention need.
This study aims to examine the correlation between gadget usage intensity, physical activity levels, and Body Mass Index (BMI) on motor competence among seventh-grade students at SMP Muhammadiyah Al-Mujahidin Wonosari. The research employed a quantitative correlational design involving 132 students selected through total sampling. Data were collected using a validated gadget usage questionnaire, the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children (PAQ-C), BMI measurements, and the Barrow Motor Ability Test. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, assumption testing (normality and linearity), Pearson correlation, and multiple regression analysis using SPSS version 25. The findings revealed that gadget usage intensity had a significant negative correlation with motor competence (r = –0.442, p < 0.05), indicating that higher screen time was associated with poorer motor skills. In contrast, physical activity showed a strong positive correlation (r = 0.557, p < 0.05), suggesting that active students tended to have better motor performance. BMI was also significantly correlated (r = 0.598, p < 0.05), with children possessing ideal BMI values demonstrating superior motor competence. The regression analysis further indicated that gadget usage, physical activity, and BMI simultaneously contributed 53.4% to the variance in students’ motor competence (Adjusted R² = 0.534). These findings highlight the multidimensional impact of digital behavior, physical habits, and nutritional status on children's physical development. The study underscores the importance of limiting screen time, promoting regular physical activity, and monitoring nutritional status as integrated strategies to enhance motor development. Educators, parents, and policymakers are encouraged to implement school-based interventions and awareness programs to foster healthier lifestyles in the digital era.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gumelar et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: