1. Key claims
2. Global Argument
Their assessment methods compare to general studies available used in assessing physical activities and movement, globally. For example, they compare children who spend more time in MVPA to have higher fundamental skills, however they also argue that habitual physical activity need not be closely associated with childhood.
3. Methodology
It was a randomized control study, and the physical activities were measured using an accelerometer. Different intensities of physical activities were also alternatively used. Additionally habitual physical activities were measured. It was appropriate because it was carried out in healthy children, the study was controlled, and the tools for measurement could appropriately measure activities and habitual activities almost accurately.
4. Limitations
Studies in this area are scarce and there is no global consensus on methods that should be used to assess movement skills or physical activities. They also used an accelerometer, uniaxial, which is less accurate than the bi-triaxial instruments. There was a misclassification of vigorous activity as moderate intense activity. Fundamental movement skills did not consider different sub- categories of skills, hence making it weaker.
5. Ways to address limitations
You can use oriented movement skills rather than product oriented. Bi- triaxial instruments should also be used to ensure accuracy output measurements. Vigorous activity should be given a classification of intense activity, and considering different sub- categories of movement skills.
References
Fisher, A. R. (2005). Fundamental Movement Skills and Habitual Physical Activity in Young Children. Medicin and SCience in Sports and Exercise .
