ASSESSING GENERAL MOTOR ABILITY AND TESTS FOR TALENT IDENTIFICATION OF MALAYSIAN ADOLESCENTS By Halijah Ibrahim 0179666 This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health Faculty of Life and Physical Sciences The University of Western Australia November 2009 ii ABSTRACT Talent Identification (TI) in sports begins by mass screening individuals’ motor abilities. du Randt (2000) wrote that, as test items from one country might not necessarily suit another, appropriate basic motor skill test items are important for developing a TI mass screening instrument. Three hundred and thirty Malaysian adolescents aged from 12-15 years were tested on three motor skill test batteries: the McCarron Assessment of Neuromuscular Development (MAND, McCarron, 1982); the Australian Talent Identification Test (AIS, Australian Sports Commission, 1998); and a Balance and Movement Coordination Test which was specifically developed for this project. In the current research, the motor performance data recorded from the adolescents underwent several types of analyses. Principal Component analyses were conducted on the MAND, AIS and BMC motor skill instruments to understand what the three motor skill instruments were assessing globally in the Malaysian adolescents. Then, first-order and higher-order factor analyses were conducted on the 13 parameters making up the AIS+BMC motor skill instrument to examine the concept of general motor ability (GMA). After descriptive analyses of the adolescents’ motor skill performances, age and gender differences were examined using two (gender) by four (age) ANOVAs. Finally, stepwise discriminant function analyses were conducted on a combined AIS+BMC motor skill instrument to determine the best sub-set of motor skills that reliably classified the Malaysian adolescents into three levels of motor performance. Principal Component analyses on the three motor skill instruments among all participants demonstrated that the MAND assessed three motor abilities - postural control, bi-manual dexterity and muscle power. Only one motor ability was found to be assessed by the AIS motor skill instrument, that of anaerobic power. Finally, the BMC assessed movement coordination, postural control and static balance. These findings did not correspond with the hypothesised factor structures. These instruments need to be carefully examined because what they assess appears to change with the population under investigation. Higher-order factor analyses were performed separately on all subjects to test for a motoric ‘g’. The motor abilities of movement coordination and postural control were found for both girls and boys, and some balancing ability emerged. Girls exhibited static balance, whereas boys recorded a more general balance factor named kinaesthetic integration, and explosive power. Hence, when assessing motor skill, power appears to be relevant for adolescent boys. The descriptive analyses indicated that the participants increased in height, weight and BMI across gender and age. Results also demonstrated no significant interactions between gender iii and age on fine motor skills of the MAND. However, significant interactions between gender and age were shown on the MANDs gross motor skills of grip strength, and finger- nose-finger, with varied performances reported for the boys and girls across the age groups. For the gross motor skills of jumping and heel-and-toe the boys outperformed the girls. A gender-by-age interaction was also reported for the AIS motor skill of basketball throw with the older boy and girl age groups throwing further; particularly the 14- and 15-year-old boys. The boys also outperformed the girls for the AIS motor skills of vertical jump and 40m sprint. Finally, a significant interaction between gender and age was reported for the BMC motor skill of hopping speed. This revealed that although boys outperformed girls at age 12 they deteriorated with an increase in age while the girls improved hopping speed as they became older. The two movement coordination motor skills of the shuttle run and the shuttle-run-with-object revealed that the boys outperformed the girls. Finally, the results for the quadrant jump indicated that the number of correct jumps for the girls increased with age and that from age 13 the girls outperformed the boys. Two stepwise discriminant analyses were undertaken to find the best set of motor skills for classifying Malaysian adolescents into three motor coordination groups based on scores on the MAND and three motor ability groups derived from scores on the motoric ‘g’. The ability of a combined AIS+BMC motor skill instrument to classify Malaysian adolescents into the three groups was good for those classified as Normal, not so great for those adolescents classified as High, and poor for those adolescents classified as Low. The motor skills consistently reported across both sets of analyses were Balance-Eyes-Open, Balance- Eyes-Closed, Dynamic Balance, Hopping Speed, Quadrant Jump, Hopping-in-Square, Basketball Throw and Shuttle-Run-with-Object. Hence, motor skills assessing static balance, dynamic balance and postural control appeared to reliably discriminate the Malaysian adolescents into three motor performance groups. Finally, an examination of the misclassifications found in the discriminant analyses revealed two things. Those individuals being predicted into a lower group performed a large number of the motor skills to a lesser standard when compared with their correctly classified cohorts. Conversely, those predicted into a higher group performed a number of motor skills to a standard higher than their correctly classified cohorts. Thus, at a global level, certain individuals could be overlooked for further athletic development and is a concern when developing a rigorous TI program. Therefore, practitioners need to be cautious of any single ability score, and how that represents an individual’s athletic potential. These results are discussed, limitations noted, and directions for future research provided. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank many people, especially those listed below, without whose contributions this research would not be completed. Firstly, thanks to my research supervisor, Dr. Dawne Larkin for the ideas and enthusiasm shown to me. Your encouragement, guidance and passion constantly inspired me to bring this research area to life. To all the staff and postgraduate students in the School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, at The University of Western Australia, thanks for all your support and assistance. You provided me with a fantastic environment in which to work. To Dr Paul Heard and Professor Brian Blanksby, special thanks for helping me bring this project to fruition. Thank you Adis for the time you spent helping me with my writing. To Tun and Jem, even though you were far from us, your assistance was the best we had. To Sue, Debbie and the Herdsman Neighbourhood Centre, thanks for being there for us help with the hectic work and release the tension. Thanks too for teaching us how to live in Australia by providing support in the environment and society when we first arrived. Mak, bapak and family, you are my inspirations. Thank you very much to the participants, colleagues and friends in Malaysia, and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia who supported my study here. Most importantly, for my own family, I want to thank my lovely husband and sons, Zainal Fahrul, Faisal and Fauzi for making this thesis possible. Your support and faith make me believe anything is possible. Hopefully, this thesis is reward for all the sleepless nights. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .......................................................................... 3 1.2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ........................................................................................ 3 1.3. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY ......................................... 4 1.4. DELIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................... 5 1.5. LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................... 5 1.6. DEFINITION OF TERMS ......................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................................... 9 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 9 2.1. TALENT IDENTIFICATION IN SPORTS ............................................................... 9 2.2. MOTOR ABILITY ................................................................................................... 24 2.3. GENERALITY VERSUS SPECIFICITY OF MOTOR ABILITY ......................... 27 2.4. MOTOR ABILITY TESTS ...................................................................................... 29 2.5. HUMAN MOVEMENT TAXONOMY ................................................................... 31 2.6. FACTORS UNDERLYING MOTOR ABILITY ..................................................... 32 2.7. DISCRIMINATING ITEMS IN MOTOR ABILITY .............................................. 36 2.8. MOTOR ABILITY STUDIES AMONG ADOLESCENTS .................................... 38 CHAPTER 3 ......................................................................................................................... 42 METHODS AND PROCEDURES .................................................................................. 42 3.1. INSTRUMENTS. ..................................................................................................... 42 3.2. TRANSLATION OF TEST INSTRUMENTS INTO MALAY. ............................. 44 3.3. PARTICIPANTS. ..................................................................................................... 45 3.4. ADMINISTRATION OF THE TESTS .................................................................... 46 3.5. DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 46 CHAPTER 4 ......................................................................................................................... 51 FACTOR ANALYSES OF THE MOTOR SKILL INSTRUMENTS ............................. 51 SECTION A - FACTORS UNDERLYING THE MAND, AIS AND BMC ................... 52 4.1. RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 52 4.2. DISCUSSION: FACTORS UNDERLYING THE MAND, AIS AND BMC.......... 56 4.3. RESULTS – BOYS’ SUB-SAMPLE ....................................................................... 63 4.4. RESULTS – GIRLS’ SUB-SAMPLE ...................................................................... 67 4.5. DISCUSSION – GMA ANALYSES ....................................................................... 70 4.6. GENERAL DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 73 vi CHAPTER 5 ......................................................................................................................... 77 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION FOR THE MOTOR SKILL PERFORMANCES ......... 77 5.1. AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF SPORT (AIS) TALENT IDENTIFICATION INSTRUMENT ................................................................................................................ 77 5.2. McCARRON ASSESSMENT OF NEUROMUSCULAR DEVELOPMENT (MAND) ................................................................................................................... 84 5.3. BALANCE AND MOVEMENT COORDINATION (BMC) INSTRUMENT ....... 92 5.4. DISCUSSION........................................................................................................... 99 5.5. SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 110 CHAPTER 6 ....................................................................................................................... 112 DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS OF COMBINED AIS+BMC MOTOR SKILL SET .... 112 6.1. GROUP CLASSIFICATION BASED ON SCORES ON THE MAND ................ 112 6.2. RESULTS – ALL PARTICIPANTS ...................................................................... 114 6.3. DISCUSSION – ALL PARTICIPANTS ................................................................ 120 6.4. GROUP CLASSIFICATION BASED ON THE MOTORIC ‘g’ ........................... 122 6.5. RESULTS – ALL PARTICIPANTS ...................................................................... 124 6.6. DISCUSSION – ALL PARTICIPANTS ................................................................ 129 6.7. GENERAL DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 131 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS ......... 136 7.1. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH................................................................................ 136 7.2. LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................... 147 7.3. STRENGTHS ......................................................................................................... 148 7.4. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 149 7.5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ............................................. 150 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 151 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Test Items with Predominant Characteristics in the Australian Talent Search Program. ........................................................................................................... 18 Table 2. Different Sets of Items to Identify Talented Young Athletes........................... 19 Table 3. Categorised Factors Underlying Physical Qualities and Motor Educability. ... 35 Table 4. Rate of Motor Ability Improvements. .............................................................. 41 Table 5. Numbers and Percentages of Participants in the Research. .............................. 45 Table 6. Motor Skills, Scoring Method & Statistical Analyses from Chapters 4-6. ...... 50 Table 7. Correlations, Components & Loadings for the MAND for All Participants. ... 54 Table 8. Correlations, Component & Loadings for the AIS for All Participants. .......... 55 Table 9. Correlations, Components & Loadings for the BMC for All Participants. ...... 56 Table 10. Correlations, Components & Loadings of the AIS+BMC for the Boys........... 64 Table 11. Higher-order Factor Analysis of the AIS+BMC for the Boys. ........................ 65 Table 12. Correlations, Components & Loadings of the AIS+BMC for the Girls. .......... 68 Table 13. Higher-order Factor Analysis of the AIS+BMC for the Girls. ......................... 68 Table 14. The First-order Components and Higher-order Factor of the AIS+BMC for the Boys’ and Girls’ Sub-samples. ............................................................. 73 Table 15. Means ± SDs and Reliability Coefficients for the AIS Tests. .......................... 78 Table 16. Means ± SDs for the AIS Anthropometry Measures. ...................................... 79 Table 17. ANOVA Results for the AIS Anthropometry Measures. ................................. 80 Table 18. Descriptives for the Main Effect Age on the AIS Weight Assessment. ........... 80 Table 19. Means ± SDs for the AIS Motor Skills. ........................................................... 82 Table 20. ANOVA Results for the AIS Motor Skills. ...................................................... 83 Table 21. Descriptives for the Main Effect Age on the Vertical Jump Motor Skill. ........ 84 Table 22. Means ± SDs and Reliability Coefficients for the MAND............................... 85 Table 23. Means ± SDs for the MAND Fine Motor Skills. ............................................. 87 Table 24. ANOVA Results for the MAND Fine Motor Skills. ........................................ 88 Table 25. Decriptives for the Main Effect Age on the Finger Tapping Motor Skill. ....... 88 Table 26. Means ± SDs for the MAND Gross Motor Skills. ........................................... 90 Table 27. ANOVA results for the MAND Gross Motor Skills. ....................................... 91 Table 28. Descriptives for the Main Effect Age on the Jumping Motor Skill. ................ 92 Table 29. Means ± SDs and Reliability Coefficients for the BMC. ................................. 93 Table 30. Means ± SDs for the BMC Body Balance Motor Skills. ................................. 94 Table 31. ANOVA Results for the BMC Body Balance Motor Skills. ............................ 95 Table 32. Means ± SDs for the BMC Movement Coordination Motor Skills. ................. 96 Table 33. ANOVA Results for the BMC Movement Coordination Motor Skills. ........... 97 viii Table 34. Mean Heights and Weights ± SDs of the Malaysian Sports Council Data and the Current Research. ............................................................................... 99 Table 35. Number and Percentage of Participants in the Three Motor Coordination Groups. ........................................................................................................... 113 Table 36. Standardised Weights, Structure Canonical Coefficient Values, Potency Index, Canoninical Correlations, Eigenvalues and Group Centroids for the Three Motor Coordination Groups ........................................................ 115 Table 37. Profiling Correctly Classified and Misclassified Observations in the Three- Group Discriminant Analysis for all Participants ............................... 118 Table 38. Participant Numbers & Percentages in the Three Motor Ability Groups. ..... 123 Table 39. Standardised Weights, Structure Canonical Coefficient Values, Potency Index, Canonical Correlations, Eigenvalues and Group Centroids for the Three Motor Ability Groups. ................................................................... 125 Table 40. Profiling Correctly Classified and Misclassified Observations in the Three-Group Discriminant Analysis for All Participants. .............................. 127 Table 41. Summary Table of Findings. .......................................................................... 137 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Conceptual framework of motor ability testing & TI program. ......................... 6 Figure 2. Talent identification and the development process. ......................................... 11 Figure 3. The motor skills, loadings & motor abilities for the MAND, AIS & BMC. .... 62 Figure 4. The AIS+BMC motor skills, first-order components and higher-order factor for the boys. ........................................................................................... 67 Figure 5. The AIS+BMC motor skills, first-order components and higher-order factor for the girls. ............................................................................................ 70 Figure 6. Significant age by gender interaction for the Basketball throw. ...................... 83 Figure 7. Significant age by gender interactions for the gross motor skills of Grip Strength and Finger-nose-finger. ...................................................................... 91 Figure 8. Significant age by gender interaction for the Hopping speed motor skill. ....... 98 Figure 9. The percentile patterns of height among Australian adolescents (Australian Sports Commission, 1998) and Malaysian participants in this study (AG = Australian girls, AB = Australian Boys, MG = Malaysian Girls, MB = Malaysian Boys). ....................................................................... 101 Figure 10. The percentile patterns of weight among Australian adolescents (Australian Sports Commission, 1998) and Malaysian participants in this study (AG = Australian girls, AB = Australian Boys, MG = Malaysian Girls, MB = Malaysian Boys). ............................................ 102 Figure 11. The percentile patterns for vertical jump results among Australian adolescents (Australian Sports Commission, 1998) and Malaysian participants in this study (AG = Australian girls, AB = Australian Boys, MG = Malaysian Girls, MB = Malaysian Boys). ............................................ 104 Figure 12. The percentile patterns for 40m sprint results among Australian adolescents (Australian Sports Commission, 1998) and Malaysian participants in this study (AG = Australian girls, AB = Australian Boys, MG = Malaysian Girls, MB = Malaysian Boys). ............................................ 105 Figure 13. The percentile patterns for the multistage fitness test results among Australian adolescents (Australian Sports Commission, 1998) and Malaysian participants in this study (AG = Australian girls, AB = Australian Boys, MG = Malaysian Girls, MB = Malaysian Boys). ....... 106 Figure 14. The percentile patterns for the basketball throw results among Australian adolescents (Australian Sports Commission, 1998) and Malaysian participants in this study (AG = Australian girls, AB = Australian Boys, MG = Malaysian Girls, MB = Malaysian Boys). ....... 107 x LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A Summary of motor ability test instruments APPENDIX B Human Movement Taxonomy APPENDIX C Details for selecting the BMC motor skills APPENDIX D Testing protocols of MAND, AIS and MC test (Malay version) APPENDIX E Letters of permission to conduct data collection APPENDIX F Testing protocols of MAND, AIS and MC test (English version) APPENDIX G Conversion Tables APPENDIX H Confirmatory Factor Analyses of The MAND APPENDIX I Total Sample Analysis Testing Motoric ‘g’ APPENDIX J Female Discriminant Analyses Note. The appendices are stored on the CD provided.