Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Dec 31;14(1):172.
doi: 10.3390/jcm14010172.

Validation of an Eye-Foot Coordination Assessment Tool for Children in Dual-Task Condition

Karina Elizabeth Andrade-Lara  1 , Víctor Serrano Huete  2 , Eva Atero Mata  1 , Juan Antonio Párraga Montilla  1 , Julio Herrador Sánchez  3 , Asensio Moreno Marín  1 , Melchor Martínez Redondo  4 , Daniel Manjón Pozas  5 , Jesús Salas Sánchez  2   6 , Manuel Lucena Zurita  5 , José Carlos Cabrera Linares  1 , Pedro Ángel Latorre Román  1
Affiliations

Validation of an Eye-Foot Coordination Assessment Tool for Children in Dual-Task Condition

Karina Elizabeth Andrade-Lara et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Eye-foot coordination is essential in sports and daily life, enabling the synchronization of vision and movement for tasks like ball control or crossing obstacles. This study aimed to examine both the validity and reliability of an innovative eye-foot coordination (EFC) test in a dual-task paradigm in children aged 6-11 years and the capacity of this test to discriminate between sex and age. Methods: A total of 440 schoolchildren aged 6-11 years participated in this cross-sectional study. A ball control test, involving kicking and catching, was used to assess EFC. The assessment included three conditions: without interference (WI), with auditory interference (AI), and with visual interference (VI). Results: The ICCs per the EFC test scores were 0.975 for foot successes (95% CI = 0.961-0.983; p < 0.001) and 0.747 for foot mistakes (95% CI = 0.611-0.835; p < 0.001). The SEM for the standing successes was 3.082 (10.81%), and the MDC was 4.860 (17.05%). For the standing mistakes, the SEM was 1.551 (19.33%) and the MDC was 3.452 (43.04%). Moreover, boys had a significantly higher number of successes in the WI, AI, and VI conditions (p < 0.001, respectively) than girls, although girls had more mistakes than boys only in the VI condition (p = 0.025). Conclusions: The EFC test showed adequate reliability and validity. Also, the EFC test showed that performance worsened with interference regardless of sex and age, especially in girls in the VI condition.

Keywords: coordination test; dual paradigm; interference; motor competence; motor task.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
EFC test with auditory and visual interference (dual-task conditions).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Bland–Altman graph of EFC successes: pretest/retest.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Bland–Altman graph of EFC mistakes: pretest/retest.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Linear trends in the number of successes on the EFC test between sexes in each condition. WI = without interference; AI = auditory interference; VI = visual interference; *** Denote differences between sexes (p < 0.001); Lowercase letters denote significant differences between conditions.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Linear trends in the number of mistakes on the EFC test between sexes in each condition. WI = without interference; AI = auditory interference; VI = visual interference; * Denote significant differences between sexes (p < 0.05); Lowercase letters denote significant differences between conditions.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Interaction of sex and age in EFC successes in the three conditions (WI, AI, VI). WI = without interference; AI = auditory interference; VI = visual interference; * Denote significant differences between sexes (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001). Lowercase letters denote significant differences between ages of each sex.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Logan S., Kipling Webster E., Getchell N., Pfeiffer K.A., Robinson L. Relationship Between Fundamental Motor Skill Competence and Physical Activity During Childhood and Adolescence: A Systematic Review. Kinesiol. Rev. 2015;4:416–426. doi: 10.1123/kr.2013-0012. - DOI
    1. Vandoni M., Marin L., Cavallo C., Gatti A., Grazi R., Albanese I., Taranto S., Silvestri D., Di Carlo E., Patanè P., et al. Poor Motor Competence Affects Functional Capacities and Healthcare in Children and Adolescents with Obesity. Sports. 2024;12:44. doi: 10.3390/sports12020044. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sortwell A., Behringer M., Granacher U., Trimble K., Forte P., Neiva H.P., Clemente-Suárez V.J., Ramirez-Campillo R., Konukman F., Tufekcioglu E., et al. Advancing Sports Science and Physical Education Research Through a Shared Understanding of the Term Motor Performance Skills: A Scoping Review with Content Analysis. Int. J. Kinesiol. Sports Sci. 2022;10:18–27. doi: 10.7575/aiac.ijkss.v.10n.3p.18. - DOI
    1. Cattuzzo M., dos Santos Henrique R., Nicolai Ré A., Santos de Oliveira I., Machado Melo B., de Sousa Moura M., Cappato de Araújo R., Stodden D. Motor Competence and Health Related Physical Fitness in Youth: A Systematic Review. J. Sci. Med. Sport. 2016;19:123–129. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2014.12.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sigmundsson H., Newell K., Polman R., Haga M. Exploration of the Specificity of Motor Skills Hypothesis in 7–8 Year Old Primary School Children: Exploring the Relationship Between 12 Different Motor Skills from Two Different Motor Competence Test Batteries. Front. Psychol. 2021;12:631175. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631175. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources