Assesses physical activity support and movement skills in children, highlighting beneficial family and community roles.
Objective To assess the level of fundamental movement skills (FMS) among children aged 6–10 years in Macau and to examine the associations between parental support for physical activity and children's FMS. Methods A total of 270 children aged 6–10 years were recruited, and 243 valid samples were included in the final analysis. Fundamental movement skills were assessed using the test of gross motor development, second edition (TGMD-2), and parental support was measured using the activity support scale for multiple groups (ACTS-MG). Descriptive statistics, independent samples t -tests, one-way ANOVA, and hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine differences and associations. Results The mean total FMS score was 66.72, with locomotor skills outperforming object control skills across all age groups. FMS scores increased significantly with age ( p < 0.01). Parental support levels were generally moderate to high, although parental modeling and community resource utilization showed relatively lower scores. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that logistical support was significantly associated with locomotor skills (β = 0.311, p < 0.01), object control skills (β = 0.117, p < 0.05), and total FMS (β = 0.288, p < 0.01), while community resource utilization was significantly associated with locomotor skills (β = 0.253, p < 0.01) and total FMS (β = 0.204, p < 0.05). Conclusion Children aged 6–10 years in Macau demonstrated relatively low levels of fundamental movement skills and an imbalance in skill development, with locomotor skills outperforming object control skills. Parental logistical support and community resource utilization were positively associated with children's FMS, highlighting the importance of strengthening family support and improving community-based physical activity environments to promote balanced motor development in children.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zheng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: