Logan Samuel W, Ross Samantha M, Chee Keanu, Stodden David F, Robinson Leah E
a College of Public Health and Human Sciences , Oregon State University , Corvallis , OR , USA.
b Department of Physical Education and Athletic Training , University of South Carolina, Solomon Blatt Physical Education Center , Columbia , SC , USA.
J Sports Sci. 2018 Apr;36(7):781-796. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2017.1340660. Epub 2017 Jun 21.
The three aims of this systematic review are to describe: (1) use of the term fundamental motor/movement skills (FMS) in published articles; (2) the quality of definitions; and (3) relative use of process- and product- oriented assessments to measure FMS. The inclusion criteria included: (a) peer-reviewed article, (b) printed in English, (c) published between January 2000 and 31 December 2015, (d) presence of either the term "fundamental motor or movement skill" in the title and/or abstract, and (e) FMS were a measured outcome. There has been an increase in the number of publications on FMS in recent years, with the majority of studies conducted in Australia (n = 41, 33%). Approximately 24% of studies (n = 30) did not provide any explicit definition of FMS. A majority of studies reported the use of process-oriented measures (n = 98, 79%) compared to product-oriented measures (n = 23, 19%), and few studies used both (n = 6, 5%). We recommend that researchers provide: (1) an operational definition of FMS that states FMS are the "building blocks" (or similar terminology) of more advanced, complex movements; (2) specific categories of skills that compose FMS; and (3) at least one specific example of a FMS.
(1)已发表文章中基本运动技能(FMS)一词的使用情况;(2)定义的质量;(3)用于测量FMS的过程导向型和结果导向型评估的相对使用情况。纳入标准包括:(a)同行评审文章;(b)英文印刷;(c)2000年1月至2015年12月31日期间发表;(d)标题和/或摘要中出现“基本运动技能”一词;(e)FMS是测量结果。近年来,关于FMS的出版物数量有所增加,大多数研究在澳大利亚进行(n = 41,33%)。约24%的研究(n = 30)未对FMS给出任何明确的定义。与结果导向型测量方法(n = 23,19%)相比,大多数研究报告使用过程导向型测量方法(n = 98,79%),很少有研究同时使用两种方法(n = 6,5%)。我们建议研究人员提供:(1)FMS的操作定义,即声明FMS是更高级、复杂运动的“基石”(或类似术语);(2)构成FMS的具体技能类别;(3)至少一个FMS的具体示例。