Review

Perceptual and Motor Skills

The General Motor 0(0) 1–21

! The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
Ability Hypothesis: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0031512517751750
An Old Idea Revisited journals.sagepub.com/home/pms

Beth Hands1, Fleur McIntyre2,

and Helen Parker1

Abstract
While specific motor abilities have become a popular explanation for motor per-
formance, the older, alternate notion of a general motor ability should be revisited.
Current theories lack consensus, and most motor assessment tools continue to
derive a single composite score to represent motor capacity. In addition, results
from elegant statistical procedures such as higher order factor analyses, cluster
analyses, and Item Response Theory support a more global motor ability. We pro-
pose a contemporary model of general motor ability as a unidimensional construct
that is emergent and fluid over an individual’s lifespan, influenced by both biological
and environmental factors. In this article, we address the implications of this model
for theory, practice, assessment, and research. Based on our hypothesis and Item
Response Theory, our Lifespan Motor Ability Scale can identify motor assessment
tasks that are relevant and important across varied phases of lifespan development.

Keywords
motor assessment, motor ability, motor development

Introduction
Motor ability is generally understood to be expressed in skilled, general body
coordination through an ability to organize the body to produce smooth,

1
Institute for Health Research, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Australia
2
School of Health Sciences, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Australia
Corresponding Author:
Beth Hands, Institute for Health Research, The University of Notre Dame Australia, 19 Mouat Street,
PO Box 1225, Fremantle, WA 6959, Australia.
Email: beth.hands@nd.edu.au
2 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

well-timed movement in response to (or emerging from) interactions with prac-

tice conditions, task requirements, and organismic constraints (Fleishman, 1964;
Gubbay, 1975; Newell, 1986; Sugden & Keogh, 1990; Sveistrup, Burtner, &
Woollacott, 1992). Schmidt (1991) defined this ability as ‘‘an inherited, relatively
enduring, stable trait of an individual that underlies or supports various kinds of
motor and cognitive activities, or skill’’ (p. 129). Terms such as athletic talent or
natural athleticism commonly embody this concept.
While this notion of a general motor or athletic ability has been popular since
early last century, scientific evidence for it has proved both elusive and contro-
versial. In early empirical psychomotor investigations, researchers like Brace
(1930) and McCloy (1934) sought to discover the meaning of a singular motor
ability that might underlie motor tests capable of predicting both general athletic
achievement and the ease of learning new motor skills. Then, with the advent of
factor analysis (Spearman & Jones, 1950; Thurstone & Thurstone, 1941) capable
of identifying multiple motor skill factors from any bank of related test items,
researchers became more interested in trying to identify and determine how
many different specific motor abilities contributed to motor performance
(Cumbee, 1954; Fleishman, 1964; Guilford, 1958; Larson, 1941; Rarick,
Dobbins, & Broadhead, 1976). For example, Fleishman (1964, 1972), whose
pioneering work extended from the 1950s to the 1980s, identified 11 psycho-
motor abilities (e.g., multilimb coordination, control precision, and response
orientation) and nine physical proficiency abilities (e.g., static strength, dynamic
strength, and dynamic flexibility).
The low correlation values between these diverse motor abilities led motor
behavior theorists to conclude that motor performance was based on task spe-
cificity (Henry, 1961, 1968; Seashore, 1930) with successful performance reliant
on a discrete cluster of abilities specific to particular motor tasks. Thus, global
ability theory began to be replaced by reductionism, and numerous studies sup-
ported the newer perspective. Seashore (1930), for example, tested 50 adults on
eight fine motor skills and found only weak correlation values (averaging .25)
between them. Henry (1961) compared two hypothesized specific motor abilities,
‘‘reaction time’’ and ‘‘speed of movement’’ and found almost zero correlation
between them. Other studies comparing tasks of balance (Bachman, 1961;
Drowatzky & Zuccato, 1967) and strength (Berger, 1962) found similarly low
correlations. Henry (1968) concluded that even abilities like coordination and
agility, considered by some as ‘‘generic’’ in successful athletic performance, were
specific to particular motor tasks. Thus, a newer view prevailed that individuals
proficient in performing a wide range of movement skills possessed many differ-
ent, specific abilities, and that patterns of specific abilities involved in successful
motor performances differed among different individuals.
Efforts to clarify motor ability in terms of its heritability, responsiveness to
experience and learning, and its individualized assessment have been restricted
by these varying theoretical perspectives and problems with measurement
Hands et al. 3

methodology and by insufficient statistical procedures for identifying any single

latent or underlying trait. The notion of a general motor ability (GMA) has not
been supported in modern research. In this context, this article revisits the
debate surrounding the existence of a GMA and applies statistical procedures
such as higher order factor analyses, cluster analyses, and Item Response Theory
(IRT) to restore cohesion between theory and practice in motor skill assessment
and the application of test results to intervention design and training principles.
Several advantages derive from accepting the notion of a GMA. First, current
theoretical explanations for motor performance are fragmented, with no one
theory able to account for all motor performance. A general ability notion
would provide better theoretical and empirical support for tests of motor ability
as ‘‘tests of motor intelligence’’ similar to the concept of general intelligence
(Spearman, 1904) or bodily kinaesthetic intelligence (Gardner, 1999). Second,
valid assessment of motor ability would assist prediction or classification of
athletic achievement and the capacity, or ease of, learning new motor skills.
Such assessment would provide a measure of ‘‘good coordination’’ and allow
the identification of motor competence across a spectrum of motor skills, from
superior to low ability, such as Developmental Coordination Disorder
(American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Third, a general ability notion
would better inform and predict motor training interventions by rehabilitation
therapists or physical educators since interventions designed around an individ-
ual’s known capacity for learning or relearning motor skills should reduce lear-
ner frustration and injury, improve motivation, and foster skill improvement.
For the purposes of this article, we have adopted a definition of GMA, similar to
Schmidt and Lee (1999), as a single trait underlying the performance of all
movement skills.

Statistical Evidence for a GMA

To date, first-order factor analyses of motor performance data derived from
multiple tasks have seemed to provide the principal support for the existence
of multiple motor abilities, distinct from a global motor ability, since, as noted
earlier, only weak correlations between separate motor skills have been found.
Further, separately identified abilities have appeared to have little in common
(though the reasons provided for these distinctions may be unrelated to whether
a GMA exists). However, test item selection in these assessment instruments has
been determined arbitrarily and neither rooted in historical testing protocols nor
framed around any theoretical model of motor ability. In addition, within these
tools, measurement and analysis methods may vary, including, for example, the
use of exploratory versus confirmatory factor analytic procedures (Fields, 2013).
Further, differing ages and sex of participants in psychometric investigations of
these tools have precluded valid comparisons of factor analytic results between
studies. Finally, Whitely (1983) reminded us that the low correlation values
4 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

between tasks may reflect many influences or be related to error variance. When
the same data are analyzed using different techniques, the resultant factors may
vary; and identifying and naming specific abilities associated with test item clus-
ters is highly dependent on the content of arbitrarily chosen test items (Carroll,
1993). Thus, researchers have given different labels to what appear to be similar
factors; and, across separate studies, the same task may even be linked with
different attributes. For example, Cozens (1929) classified the vertical jump as
a measure of leg strength whereas Larson (1941) labeled it as a measure of motor
explosiveness. Similarly, Cozens proposed that the bar snap was a measure of
body coordination, agility, and control, while Larson described it as a measure
of dynamic strength. The use of different labels attached to presumed underlying
motor abilities persists today in commonly used motor assessments. For exam-
ple, the McCarron Assessment of Neuromuscular Development (MAND;
McCarron, 1997) associates standing jump with explosive power whereas the
Movement Assessment Battery for Children (MABC; Henderson, Sugden, &
Barnett, 2007) uses jumping in squares for dynamic balance. Similarly, the
jump and clap task is considered to measure dynamic balance (Henderson &
Sugden, 1992) or bilateral coordination (Bruininks, 1978).
Regarding low intercorrelations between specific tasks, other factors con-
cerned with constraints from task demands, person, or environment character-
istics may decrease apparent associations (Newell, 1986). For instance, the
interacting factors that may reduce these correlations include differing levels
of skills development or prior experience with tasks at hand (task learning),
different motor demands in a given task performance such as dexterity versus
strength (task characteristics), different motoric demands from the dynamic
challenges of a given performance environment (open or closed tasks), different
mobility task demands (stability versus in motion), biological development and
task difficulty, the physiological status of the individual (physically fit or seden-
tary), and skill measures with a limited score range. Without fully accounting for
the effect of such extraneous factors in patterns of intercorrelation between
skills, their true associations with one another may be misrepresented.

Factor Analysis
Factor analysis seeks to identify a smaller number of underlying variables or
factors from large data sets by examining the intercorrelations. While the pat-
terns of intercorrelations between specific different motor skills may be weak,
this alone does not dismiss a strong underlying association between specific
motor skills and the existence of a single general or global motor ability. Even
though most factor analyses of motor skill test batteries have been applied in
order to identify specific motor skills that accounted for a performance, several
researchers have identified a general coordination factor in their first-order ana-
lyses. Wendler (1938), Larson (1941), Cureton (1947), Cumbee (1954), Hempel
Hands et al. 5

and Fleishman (1955), and Rarick and Dobbins (1975) all identified a general
factor that they named Gross Body Coordination that emphasized movement of
the whole body and often included the concept of agility. Later, Fleishman
(1964) explained that Gross Body Coordination involved central nervous
system activity and was ‘‘the ability to integrate the separate abilities in a com-
plex task’’ (p. 35). Previously, McCloy (1940) coined the term ‘‘motor educabil-
ity’’ measured within his neuromotor test of ‘‘general innate motor capacity’’
(p. 46), arguing that this score represented the capacity to learn new motor skills.
Bruininks (1978) found more than half of the test items in the Bruininks-
Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP) loaded 0.3 or more on one gen-
eral factor which accounted for approximately 70% of the total common factor
item variance. He interpreted it as ‘‘general motor development.’’ Similarly, the
factor analysis of the BOTMP scores from children aged 4.5 to 5.5 years by
Tabatabainia, Ziviani, and Maas (1995) revealed one factor, labeled ‘‘general
motor proficiency,’’ that accounted for 48.3% of the common variance. In the
revised BOT-2, intercorrelation coefficients ranged between 0.54 and 0.80
between the Total Motor Composite and Subtest Scale Scores (Bruininks &
Bruininks, 2005). A factor analysis of skills in the Test of Gross Motor
Development (Ulrich, 1985, 2000) identified one factor on which all skills
loaded with an eigenvalue of 3.80. The authors assumed that the skills measured
a single construct known as gross motor ability.
More recently, Larkin, Hands, Kendall, Parker, and Sloan (2007) undertook
a second-order factor analysis of MAND data (McCarron, 1997) gathered from
a sample of 1,619 10-year-olds. The MAND involves 10 tasks requiring complex
and varied motor skills. The second-order analysis identified one single factor
explaining 45% of the variance, consistent with a common, underlying construct
of a GMA. Lämmle, Tittlbach, Oberger, Worth, and Bös (2010) used confirma-
tory factor analysis to empirically test a two-level model of motor performance
ability (MPA) using physical fitness performance data for eight tasks from 2,840
children and adolescents aged 6 to 17 years. The results provide a parallel under-
standing for motor ability. Their analysis confirmed a second-order factor, MPA
for children and adolescents, although the authors argued that it was not pos-
sible to use an overall summary score to represent MPA due to the differing
dimensions of fitness ability. Finally, Ibrahim, Heard, and Blanksby (2011)
assessed 330 adolescents (165 males) on 13 motor tasks. Sex-specific, second-
order factor analyses extracted one factor that accounted for 45.5% and 59.5%
of the variance for the boys and girls, respectively. The researchers interpreted
these results as evidence of a GMA or ‘‘g’’ factor.

Cluster Analysis
Cluster analysis involves grouping participants together, based on characteristic
profiles of their scores on a set of measurements. Researchers have used cluster
6 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

analysis techniques to identify subtypes of motor performance. Of note, several

researchers have contrasted their identified subtypes with one that has no motor
deficits with a generalized impairment across all skill areas (Dewey & Kaplan,
1994; Hoare, 1994). The subtype or participant group with no motor deficits
across all test items would achieve a high score on a scale of GMA, whereas
those with poor scores in some specific areas would likely have both a lower
GMA and show deficits in specific motor abilities.

IRT Analysis
IRT analyses test the fit of a given data set to an a priori expectation model and
then position both test items and individual persons on a common unidimen-
sional and additive scale. When the data fit the model, items are located along
the measurement continuum according to the difficulty they present to the
person, and persons are positioned according to the ability demonstrated with
regard to those test items (Wright & Masters, 1982). With IRT, evidence of a
GMA would be demonstrated if various items representing a range of different
motor skills fit an unidimensional model. Bruininks (1978) first used IRT to
equate items across different samples to validate the conversion of raw scores
to standard scores and estimate total subset scores based on performance on a
few BOTMP items. When the BOT-2 (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005) was devel-
oped, item fit involving all candidate items was examined using IRT (specifically
Rasch analysis). Only those items that fit the model, that is, measured a single
dimension, were retained in the final version. Hands and Larkin (2001) used the
Extended Logistic Model of Rasch to analyze data for 24 motor skills performed
by 332 five- and six-year-old children. Given significant gender differences in
motor performance, gender-separate analyses were conducted and revealed two
different, unidimensional scales of motor ability for boys and girls. Just as
Thurstone (1946) acknowledged that a second-order general intelligence cap-
acity—the ‘‘central energizing factor which promotes the activity of all these
special abilities’’ (p. 110)—could exist, the same can be said for a GMA capacity,
based on positive raw correlation coefficients, and analyses of data derived from
a range of motor skills using more sophisticated procedures.

Models of a GMA
Some theorists describe motor ability as a hierarchical or a multitiered construct
(Cratty, 1966; Schmidt, 1991). Cratty (1966) envisaged a three-tiered framework
of factors contributing to perceptual-motor behavior. General cognitive dispos-
itions such as aspiration level, arousal, ability to analyze a task, and task per-
sistence were seen as relatively stable qualities at the highest tier, all of which
might be influenced by the person’s experience. At the second tier were percep-
tual-motor ability traits that have often been identified in factorial studies, such
Hands et al. 7

as static strength and extent flexibility. At the base of these three tiers was
a GMA. Later, Schmidt (1991) proposed a similar three-tiered framework,
presented as an inverse of Cratty’s model, in which he used the term super-ability
to describe the overriding, global structure of motor behavior. The second tier
involved specific motor abilities (such as reaction time and finger dexterity)
which made up different, but possibly overlapping, subsets of abilities contribut-
ing to the varied motor tasks placed at the base layer.
In 2001, Burton and Rodgerson proposed a four-level taxonomy of the motor
domain with GMA at its base. At the top level were ‘‘movement skills’’ (e.g.,
striking, throwing, and jumping); at the second level were ‘‘movement skill sets’’
(skill sets such as for jumping comprises different forms—vertical, long, and
jumping jack); at the third level were ‘‘movement skill foundations’’ (the modi-
fiable constraints or enablers of performance, such as balance, strength, and
flexibility); and at the base was GMA. This taxonomy highlights that there
are distinct genre or classes of motor functions classified at each category level
and that there is no validity in deriving a summary score representing the whole
cluster of individual tasks in a motor test that is drawn from the different taxo-
nomic levels with different functional characteristics. Burton and Rodgerson
argue that the assessment of surface ‘‘motor skills’’ should be in real world,
meaningful, and functional contexts in contrast to ‘‘movement skill founda-
tions’’ which affect current motor performance but are abilities that are modi-
fiable with training. If one is not cognisant of the differing characteristics of task
types and their differing contribution to motor ability then confusion about the
notion of GMA is perpetuated.

GMA: A Unidimensional Construct

With this research backdrop, we present a contemporary model of GMA, based
on Newell’s Theory of Constraints (1986), that is hypothesized as a fluid, emer-
gent capacity to learn, control, and perform motor skills across the lifespan
(Figure 1). We conceive it as a unidimensional, rather than multilayered,
construct that emerges from the interacting influences of both biological and
environmental factors with task demands. GMA is not directly measurable, but
must be inferred from the performance of movement skills or tasks (locomotor,
object control, and body management skills) and strengthened by movement
skill foundations (such as, flexibility, balance, reaction time, strength, muscle
power, etc.).
Figure 2 illustrates the key principles affecting GMA across the lifespan.
Postnatally, GMA changes and adapts in response to the interaction of per-
sonal, developmental, and environmental influences. It, therefore, is not a fixed,
inherited capacity, but a capability that both increases and then declines across
time. The initial level of motor ability in infancy and early childhood arises from
the primary influence of genetics—integrity of the neurobiological system
8 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

Figure 1. Contemporary model of general motor ability.

Figure 2. Lifespan adaptation and change in general motor ability. GMA ¼ general motor
ability.
Hands et al. 9

foundations and gender of the individual. As the child develops, there is increas-
ing influence from environmental facilitators (such as opportunity, practice,
sociocultural norms) and organismic or personal factors (such as age, motivation,
resilience, physical fitness, and previous learning). Optimally, GMA increases
throughout adolescence, peaks in adulthood, and then declines as one ages
beyond mid-adulthood, again as a function of personal, biological, and environ-
mental (illness, disease, etc.) factors. We elaborate on these factors later.

Biological Foundation
Integrity of biological foundations. Neurobiology is certainly implicated in motor
ability. According to Fleishman (1964), the notion of a general ability to coord-
inate movement implies central nervous system involvement that is independent
of particular body parts or muscle groups. Biological underpinnings of motor
ability, therefore, likely relate to the integrity of integrated motor, vestibular,
kinesthetic, and somatic systems (Gubbay, 1975; Sveistrup et al., 1992), and such
heritable morphological characteristics as body type (Parizkova, 1996). Evidence
of relative timing among groups of cortical neurons during movement tasks
suggests that temporal stability or rhythmicity may be a key component of
skilled motor performance (Kelso, 1997) and the ability to move quickly in
response to differing situations may contribute to, or reflect, a person’s overall
GMA. Should any neurological subsystem for movement control be slightly
impaired or undeveloped, motor performance would be compromised.
Gubbay (1975) noted that ‘‘the smooth functioning of the motor system not
only depends upon its anatomical intactness, but also upon the integrity of all
other central structures which act upon or influence motor function’’ (p. 3).
When children with Developmental Coordination Disorder were compared
with their same-age peers, they were found to have more variable muscle sequen-
cing and timing (Geuze & Kalverboer, 1987, 1994; Williams, Woollacott, & Ivry,
1992), poor precision of muscle activity (Parker, Larkin, & Wade, 1997), or poor
force control (Keele, Ivry, & Pokorny, 1987), and they were slower to respond in
a series of single and repetitive tasks (Schellekens, Scholten, & Krboer, 1983).
Any disturbance of these integrated systems, such as a premature birth or post-
natal steroid exposure (Zwicker et al., 2013), no matter how minor, may result in
a reduced ability to perform skillful movement and may be described as motor
impairment or a lower motor ability.

Sex. The differential effect of sex on motor performance is often ignored in

motor skills research. Yet, repeated studies have identified different biological
structures between males and females in motor skill assessments. Rarick and
Dobbins (1975) extracted differing factor structures and motor performance
typologies for 6- to 9-year-old boys and girls from among 47 motor skill and
physical growth measures. While they identified many similarities in factor
10 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

structures between sexes, 11 sex-related typologies emerged with five person-

clusters accounting for the majority of girls’ motor performances and six differ-
ent person-clusters accounting for the majority of boys’ motor skills.
Interestingly, one cluster with high mean values of strength, power, and gross
body coordination was represented only by boys. Similarly, a comprehensive,
longitudinal study of children in New Zealand found that sex strongly contrib-
uted to gross and fine motor performance differences (Silva, Birkbeck, Russell,
& Wilson, 1984), as boys performed better than girls on gross motor measures
with the reverse true for fine motor measures. Silva et al. (1984) noted that skill
differences between sexes became more pronounced in 7-year-olds than in
younger, 3- to 4-year-old children. Hands and Larkin (2001) identified a
gender-specific GMA among 5- to 6-year-old children, based on performance
outcomes from 24 different motor skills; and they found that skill performances
differed for boys and girls of similar motor ability levels. For example, skipping
was more difficult for a boy, whereas kicking a large ball was more difficult for a
girl. Finally, factor analyses of MAND data for a large sample of 10-, 14-, and
17-year-old adolescents revealed different factor structures for males and females
at each age (Hands, Larkin, & Rose, 2013).

Age. Motor ability should not be construed as static, but may be developed dif-
ferentially and changed through practice and experience (that is, exposure to
environmental influences). We depict this in Figure 2. One starts with a basic
motor ability level driven primarily by the integrity of the biological foundations
and influenced by genetics, and environmental factors then exert increasing influ-
ence with maturation. Thus, an underlying GMA may become less distinct while
skill specificity in task performance seems clearer with increasing age. This
implies that fewer motor test items could be used to describe younger children’s
motor learning capability compared with older children. Within motor test devel-
opment, a wide age span among participants may have contributed to an appar-
ent de-emphasis on the underlying GMA. In addition, test developers have
necessarily relied upon simple tasks to characterize skills of young children,
meaning that test scores quickly reach a ceiling, limiting the capacity to measure
small performance differences among adolescents and adults. Limited factor ana-
lytic studies of very young children suggest a strong whole body or gross psycho-
motor factor at that stage of development which becomes less distinct with age
(e.g., Meyers & Dingman, 1960). Broadhead, Maruyama, and Bruininks (1985)
used exploratory factor analyses to demonstrate an increasing differentiation of
motor proficiency with age; and they found that one factor accounted for 40% of
the variance in 3.5- to 6.5-year-olds but accounted for only 20% of the variance in
older children. Environmental influences may help account for the identification
of the more specific abilities identified in older children and adults (Fleishman,
1964, 1972), but differentiated capabilities are also a function of brain develop-
ment. Burton and Rodgerson (2001) reviewed a number of developmental studies
Hands et al. 11

that collectively indicated greater differentiation, or specificity, in motor abilities

from childhood to adulthood.

Environmental Influences
Environmentally related variations in activities and skill building opportunities
clearly contribute to a differential fine tuning of the relevant neuromotor sub-
systems and motor expressions children display (Sporns & Edelman, 1993).
These differences have often been observed and reported between individuals
and between boys and girls. Benenson, Liroff, Pascal, and Cioppa (1997) found
evidence of a strong link between boys’ masculinity (measured, e.g., through toy
preference, play activities, and social interactions) and their propulsion ability,
defined as forceful, projection action. While these researchers concluded that
propulsion may be a behavioral expression of masculinity, as compared with
femininity, the origins of this presumed masculinity involves differential envir-
onmental influences experienced by boys and girls that in turn facilitate aligned
motor capacities.
Sociocultural influences in play opportunities and types of games and sports
valued by a culture have been well researched (Coakley & Pike, 2014). Although
sport is now more global in its reach, there remain common examples of differ-
ent dominant sports during development across cultures. For example, British
versus American cultural influence can be seen through cricket versus baseball,
netball versus basketball, and soccer versus gridiron football. Societies that dif-
ferentially value physical activity involvement in childhood team sports partici-
pation may affect motor skill development. In societies where athletic talent is
identified very early for elite training are apt to lead to different childhood motor
outcomes than those in which there is a ‘‘sport for all’’ philosophy. Often, soci-
etal wealth is reflected in part by community support of physical education and
sports in school curricula. Intimately linked with societal factors is the social
support given by parents, teachers (school physical education), coaches, and
peers for physical activity opportunities.
Optimal practice afforded by specialized coaching and modern methods of
physical training, such as employing weight training, overload and recovery
principles, training cycles in off and on-season scheduling, and enhanced nutri-
tion, strengthens individual motor ability within a particular domain. However,
whether so narrow a focus on a single sporting pursuit facilitates or hinders
optimal development of a GMA across the lifespan is unknown (Baker, 2003;
Baker, Cobley, & Fraser-Thomas, 2009; Wiersma, 2000). One might surmise
that developing exceptional individual talent in a particular physical endeavor
does not necessarily enhance general motor capability. Indeed, Wiersma (2000)
suggested that performing a limited range of skills during early sport specializa-
tion has the potential to limit overall motor skill development. Anecdotally, elite
junior swimmers are often ill-adapted to play ball-sports later on with
12 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

underdeveloped tracking or intercepting abilities with racquet or foot. While our

understanding of the mechanisms of how sport and skill specialization influences
development and GMA is limited, researchers have proposed that diversification
is important for our overall capacity to learn and transfer skill learnings (Baker,
2003; Baker et al., 2009).

Implications of a GMA Theory

If individual variance in motor competence is best explained by a GMA, it will
be important to continue to try to understand the degree to which generic ability
may be genetic, developed, and changed through environmental influences (Wulf
& Lewthwaite, 2009) or epigenetic in a combination of both (Holliday, 2006).
Current views of the basis of motor ability favor neither exclusive hereditary
(innate) nor environmental factors. Thelen’s (1995) neonate and infant stepping
studies demonstrated that growth (fat deposition on limbs) and the associated
biomechanical constraints in air or water environments was a primary constraint
on stepping behaviors. Her findings opposed the primacy of innate neural mat-
uration as the sole explanation for the disappearance of this reflexive behavior
by around 6 weeks of age, and supported omnipresent environmental influences.
The closely intertwined nature of biological and environmental influences is
illustrated by ways in which environmental opportunities to fine tune the
system through practice and experience stimulate both biological growth and
the development of neural pathways thereby further enhancing motor perform-
ance and ongoing engagement with the environment. Our proposed model of
GMA across the lifespan (see Figure 2) addresses the changing predominance of
interactions between hereditary and environmental influences that typically
occur at different points of the lifespan. Interestingly, even beliefs
about motor ability play a role in motor learning capability. Wulf and
Lewthwaite (2009) showed that, for young adults, learning a motor skill was
enhanced by reinforcing beliefs that a person’s motor ability was ‘‘learnable’’
and not a fixed, inherent capacity. Accordingly, the key tenets of our GMA
model are that GMA is:

. an underlying unidimensional construct representing the capacity to learn

and perform motor skills;
. a level of motor learning demonstrated by performance outcomes across a
variety of motor skills. It is not captured by a reductionist approach that
identifies only specific motor abilities from specific task measurements;
. an emergent and fluid construct that evolves over the lifespan, tempered by
both environmental influencers and person or biological factors; and
. predominantly influenced by biological foundations in infancy, and increas-
ingly influenced by environmental factors with age reverses with the bio-
logical decline associated with old age.
Hands et al. 13

Implications for Practice or Motor Interventions

If we accept the notion of an underlying, modifiable GMA, then an increasing
importance must be attributed to environmental influences over the period of a
person’s development. However, primary methods of intervention might shift
toward enhancement of GMA, rather than a focus on specific motor skills.
Thus, a coach or exercise scientist might move from breaking down skills into
component parts through specific task analysis and focus, instead, on developing
an individual’s overall motor capacity—a top down approach. The search to
identify, name, and train specific abilities thought to underpin a given task (the
bottom up approach) risks missing the mark, given the proliferation of ways to
break a task down. This does not mean that there are development phases where
a focus on specialized skill development is not necessary. For some populations,
such as those with special needs, task analysis may be an essential form of
intervention.
Since GMA is particularly amenable to opportunities to practice as an indi-
vidual matures, there is considerable value in attending to whether the environ-
mental context is or is not stimulating for physical activity and motor
competence. Thus, there should be a focus on providing an environment that
motivates, stimulates, and challenges through a range of activities. Sociocultural
factors may act as either constraints or enablers. Recent research identifies par-
ental physical activity, community facilities, socioeconomic levels, and parental
employment affect males and female differently. Cross-national and cross-ethnic
studies report effects across a wide range of ages from preschool children to
adults, for example, Canada (Salas, Raine, Vallianatos & Spence, 2016),
Switzerland (Bürgi et al., 2010), France (Deflandre, Lorant, Gavarry, &
Falgairette, 2001), Australia (Caperchione, Kolt, Tennent, & Mummery, 2011),
South America (Goncalves, Hallal, Amorim, Araujo, & Menezes, 2007), and
Oceania (Mavoa & McCabe, 2008). Collectively, the studies show economic fac-
tors (parental unemployment and lower incomes), cultural values, and gender
roles to adversely affect physical activity, particularly in females (Goncalves et al.,
2007). Abbasi’s (2014) review revealed that significant barriers for females’ phys-
ical activity were the lack of social support; traditional roles of childcare, house-
hold work, cultural beliefs, social isolation, unsafe neighborhood environments,
rural living areas, and the absence of culturally appropriate facilities. Positive
factors for physical activity included the ability for males and females to meet
with friends outside school (Goncalves et al., 2007) and, for females, family or
community role models (Abbasi, 2014). Of interest, 14-year-old Brazilian males
had greater social and family support to engage in physical activity than their
female peers but, in an apparent clash with family values, many parents asso-
ciated the physical activity time out of home with poor academic performance
(Goncalves et al., 2007). Given sociocultural factors are complex and are related
to sex and developmental stage; these should be considered when designing and
14 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

delivering interventions and training programs, including positive social support

by teachers, parents, peers, and coaches.

Implications for Motor Assessment

There is no generally accepted, unifying theoretical framework (or taxonomy) of
the motor skill domain. Terminology and labels for abilities vary and are not
interchangeable between researchers and practitioners. Models of motor abilities
often identify hierarchical relationships between the underpinning foundation
abilities and the overarching motor ability construct, meaning that the motor
ability construct still relies on multidimensional test batteries with a variety of
measurement tasks that have often been arbitrarily chosen or based on historical
precedence (Burton & Rogerson, 2001). Contemporary neuromotor tests, such
as the Bruininks Oseretsky Test, second edition (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005),
the Movement Assessment Battery for Children, second edition (Henderson
et al., 2007), and the McCarron Assessment of Neuromuscular Development
(McCarron, 1997) all include batteries of tasks subgrouped into several skill
domains or skill clusters, such as balance, dexterity, ball skills, or strength.
Commonly, these skill ‘‘domains’’ are justified as the underlying abilities of
motor performance even though a standardized, single, summary motor score
is derived from the separate item scores. In deriving this summary score, con-
temporary tests implicitly subscribe to the notion of a common motor factor,
or GMA, even while they emphasize subskills. Many of these motor tests have
been criticized for lacking theoretical support (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1988) or for
extrapolating dimensions of motor ability in adult samples to children or vice
versa, both without empirical validation (Hands, Licari, & Piek, 2015; Lämmle
et al., 2010).
Reconceptualizing motor assessment through a GMA theory reemphasizes
the importance of an underlying GMA and leads to valid, reliable motor testing
that is grounded in theory, developmentally appropriate, and gender specific.
If motor ability is primarily unidimensional, test items should be selected differ-
entially in accordance with those that are suited to the age and sex of the person
tested, and the overall summary score should have particular meaning. Any
profile of specific abilities should be seen as secondary to a GMA, and subskills
would likely be most relevant for older, rather than younger, persons. The
meaning of a given test item or understanding of what it is measuring should
be theoretically as well as empirically derived. There should be clarity to what a
summary or composite score actually represents, as a ‘‘level of motor develop-
ment’’ (Ulrich, 2000), motor learning capability, or global motor ability.
Attention should also be paid to what motor test items have the most relevance
and importance for each phase of the lifespan. For example, limb coordination
may matter most in infancy, while the mastery of locomotor, body management,
and object control tasks matter more in childhood; power and speed become
Hands et al. 15

Figure 3. Lifespan Motor Ability Scale.

important in adolescence whereas balance and flexibility could be most import-

ant in older adults. Accordingly, we propose the development of a Lifespan
Motor Ability Scale based on IRT, as presented in Figure 3. This statistical
model depicts how task difficulty would change for any one skill with each
developmental phase. The example demonstrates how such task variations, in
this case catching, are not merely lock-stepped with increasing age. Motor test-
ing should select task variations according to the difficulty level as established by
IRT approaches.

Implications for Research

The GMA theory raises many questions and should stimulate further research.
To date, the definition of motor ability or specific motor abilities has been driven
by the broad range of test items included in various factor analyses. New stat-
istical methodologies, such as, IRT, or Structural Equation Modeling might
better explicate a GMA motor ability construct, as a number of new research
questions are raised. For example, what core elements might there be to embody
a GMA and what type of empirical research might clarify abilities in this general
motor domain? We suspect that a multidimensional framework, based on an
ability profile or spectrum, might better capture the fundamental nature of
motor ability than one that emphasizes many specific skills. Burton and
Rodgerson’s (2001) taxonomy classifies movement skill foundations, motor
skills, and skill sets, and this taxonomy merits empirical validation to determine
whether these categories are robust in test construction. There has been a limited
application of IRT methodologies to test for a unidimensional scale of motor
tasks in a ‘‘goodness of fit’’ approach through which GMA may be inferred and
examined. IRT might be applied to identify developmentally appropriate motor
tasks that have relevance and importance for each phase of the lifespan (see
Figure 3). It has also been rare for task analysis to be used to label specific motor
abilities for a particular skill; yet, this approach might facilitate consensus
16 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

among researchers as to how to properly label specific important abilities. For

example, is muscle power or strength and coordination most critical to the
standing broad jump?
While much research revealing motor ability factor structures has neglected
developmental and gender differences in motor performance, the different role
that environmental experiences play in developing neuromotor systems at dif-
ferent ages and for males and females, respectively, has been investigated. There
will need to be more attention given to whether gender bias matters in these
environmental influences and to whether or to what degree test developers
should account for or avoid gender bias in task selection.
Future research might consider at what ages these issues are most important.
Structural equation modeling might better identify significant environmental
and biological factors and the critical task demands that contribute to the emer-
gent GMA across the lifespan (Figure 1). Indeed, new longitudinal research
might clarify the predictive power of motor assessments and even test the
assumptive relative predominance of biological and environmental influences
through development.
In summary, this contemporary model of GMA contrasts to earlier concep-
tions. We define GMA as a fluid, emergent capacity to learn, control, and per-
form motor skills across the lifespan. It is a unidimensional construct that
emerges from the interacting influences of both biological and environmental
factors with task demands (not an unchanging, innate entity). This capability is
inferred from the performance of movement skills or tasks (locomotor, object
control, and body management skills), and strengthened by movement skill
foundations (such as flexibility, balance, reaction time, strength, muscle
power, etc.). All of these skills and foundation elements are trainable and mutu-
ally facilitate improved performance—these aspects are not fixed, unchanging,
or insular in their effect. Such an integrated construct is in opposition to the
hitherto dominance of specificity of abilities in motor performance (Fleishman,
1964; Henry, 1961, 1968).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.

References
Abbasi, I. N. (2014). Socio-cultural barriers to attaining recommended levels of physical
activity among females: A review of literature. Quest, 66(4), 448–467. doi:10.1080/
00336297.2014.955118
Hands et al. 17

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Bachman, J. C. (1961). Motor learning and performance as related to age and sex in two
measures of balance coordination. The Research Quarterly, 32(2), 123–137.
Baker, J. (2003). Early Specialization in Youth Sport: A requirement for adult expertise?
High Ability Studies, 14(1), 85–94. doi:10.1080/1303200009352
Baker, J., Cobley, S., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2009). What do we know about early sport
specialization?. Not much! High Ability Studies, 20(1), 77–89. doi:10.1080/
13598130902860507
Benenson, J. F., Liroff, E. R., Pascal, S. J., & Cioppa, G. D. (1997). Propulsion: A
behavioural expression of masculinity. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
15(1), 37–50.
Berger, R. (1962). Effect of varied weight training programs on strength. Research
Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation,
33(2), 168–181.
Brace, D. K. (1930). Measuring motor ability. New York, NY: A S Barnes.
Broadhead, G., Maruyama, G., & Bruininks, R. (1985). Examining differentiation in
motor proficiency through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Motor
Development: Current Selected Research, 1, 167–179.
Bruininks, R. H. (1978). Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency: Examiner’s
manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Bruininks, R. H., & Bruininks, B. D. (2005). Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor profi-
ciency: Examiner’s manual (2nd ed.). Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson.
Bürgi, F., Meyer, U., Niederer, I., Ebenegger, V., Marques-Vidal, P., Granacher,
U., . . . Puder, J. J. (2010). Socio-cultural determinants of adiposity and physical activ-
ity in preschool children: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 733–733.
doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-733
Burton, A. W., & Rodgerson, R. W. (2001). New perspectives on the assessment of move-
ment skills and motor abilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18(4), 347–365.
Caperchione, C. M., Kolt, G. S., Tennent, R., & Mummery, W. K. (2011). Physical
activity behaviours of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) women living in
Australia: A qualitative study of socio-cultural influences. BMC Public Health, 11(1),
26–26. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-26
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Coakley, J. J., & Pike, E. (2014). Sports in society: Issues and controversies. London,
England: McGraw-Hill.
Cozens, F. W. (1929). The measurement of general athletic ability in college men. Eugene,
OR: University of Oregon.
Cratty, B. J. (1966). A three level theory of perceptual-motor behavior. Quest, 6(1), 3–9.
Cumbee, F. (1954). A factorial analysis of motor coordination. Research Quarterly, 25,
412–428.
Cureton, T. K. (1947). Physical fitness appraisal and guidance. St Louis, MO: Mosby.
Deflandre, A., Lorant, J., Gavarry, O., & Falgairette, G. (2001). Determinants of physical
activity and physical and sports activities in French school children. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 92(2), 399–414. doi:10.2466/pms.2001.92.2.399
18 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

Dewey, D., & Kaplan, B. (1994). Suptyping of developmental motor deficits.

Developmental Neuropsychology, 10(3), 265–284.
Drowatzky, J. N., & Zuccato, F. C. (1967). Interrelationships between selected measures
of static and dynamic balance. The Research Quarterly, 38(3), 509–510.
Fields, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fleishman, E. A. (1964). The structure and measurement of physical fitness. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fleishman, E. A. (1972). On the relation between abilities, learning, and human perform-
ance. American Psychologist, 27(11), 1017.
Gardner, H. E. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Geuze, R. H., & Kalverboer, A. F. (1987). Inconsistency and adaptation in timing of
clumsy children. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 13, 421–432.
Geuze, R. H., & Kalverboer, A. F. (1994). Tapping a rhythm: A problem of timing for
children who are clumsy and dyslexic? Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 11(2),
203–213.
Goncalves, H., Hallal, P., Amorim, T., Araujo, C., & Menezes, A. (2007). Sociocultural
factors and physical activity level in early adolescence. Revista Panamericana De Salud
Publica-Pan American Journal of Public Health, 22(4), 246–253.
Gubbay, S. S. (1975). The clumsy child: A study of developmental apraxic and agnostic
ataxia. London, England: W.B. Saunders.
Guilford, J. P. (1958). A system of the psychomotor abilities. The American Journal of
Psychology, 71(1), 164–174. doi:10.2307/1419204
Hands, B., & Larkin, D. (2001). Using the Rasch measurement model to investigate the
construct of motor ability in young children. Journal of Applied Measurement, 2(2),
101–120.
Hands, B., Larkin, D., & Rose, E. (2013). The psychometric properties of the McCarron
assessment of neuromuscular development as a longitudinal measure with Australian
youth. Human Movement Science, 32(0), 485–497. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2013.02.007
Hands, B., Licari, M., & Piek, J. (2015). A review of five tests to identify motor coord-
ination difficulties in young adults. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 40–51.
Hempel, W. E., & Fleishman, E. A. (1955). Factor analysis of physical proficiency and
manipulative skill. Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 12–16.
Henderson, S., & Sugden, D. (1992). Movement assessment battery for children: Manual.
San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Henderson, S., Sugden, D., & Barnett, A. L. (2007). Movement assessment battery for
children-2: Examiner’s manual. London, England: Pearson Assessment.
Henry, F. M. (1961). Reaction time-movement time correlations. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 12, 63–66.
Henry, F. M. (1968). Specificity vs generality in learning motor skill. In M. J. Safrit & G.
S. Kenyon (Eds.), Classical studies on physical activity (pp. 328–331). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hoare, D. (1994). Subtypes of developmental coordination disorder. Adapted Physical
Activity Quarterly, 11(2), 158–169.
Holliday, R. (2006). Epigenetics: A historical overview. Epigenetics, 1(2), 76–80.
Hands et al. 19

Ibrahim, H., Heard, N. P., & Blanksby, B. (2011). Exploring the general motor ability
construct. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 113(2), 491–508.
Keele, S. W., Ivry, R. I., & Pokorny, R. A. (1987). Force control and its relation to
timing. Journal of Motor Behavior, 19(1), 96–114.
Kelso, J. S. (1997). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behaviour.
Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Lämmle, L., Tittlbach, S., Oberger, J., Worth, A., & Bös, K. (2010). A two-level model of
motor performance ability. Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness, 8(1), 41–49.
Larkin, D., Hands, B., Kendall, G., Parker, H., & Sloan, N. (2007). Are we
measuring motor ability? Paper presented at the Progress in Motor Control V1,
Santos, Brazil.
Larson, L. A. (1941). A factor analysis of motor ability variables and tests, with tests for
college men. Research Quarterly, 12, 499–517.
Mavoa, H., & McCabe, M. (2008). Sociocultural factors relating to Tongans’ and
Indigenous Fijians’ patterns of eating, physical activity and body size. Asia Pacific
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 17(3), 375–384.
McCarron, L. T. (1997). MAND McCarron assessment of neuromuscular development.
Dallas, TX: Common Market Press.
McCloy, C. H. (1934). The measurement of general motor capacity and general motor
ability. Research Quarterly, 5(Supp1): 46–61.
McCloy, C. H. (1940). A preliminary study of factors in motor educability. Research
Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 11(2),
28–39.
Meyers, C., & Dingman, H. F. (1960). The structure of abilities at the preschool ages:
Hypothesized domains. Psychological Bulletin, 57(6), 514.
Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade &
H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and
control (pp. 341–360). Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff.
Parizkova, J. (1996). Nutrition, physical activity, and health in early life. Bocan Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Parker, H., Larkin, D., & Wade, M. G. (1997). Are timing problems subgroup specific in
children with developmental coordination disorder? The Australian Educational and
Developmental Psychologist, 14(1), 35–42.
Rarick, G. L., & Dobbins, D. A. (1975). A motor performance typology of boys and girls
in the age range 6 to 10 years. Journal of Motor Behavior, 7(1), 37–43.
Rarick, G. L., Dobbins, D. A., & Broadhead, G. D. (1976). The motor domain and its
correlates in educationally handicapped children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Salas, X. R., Raine, K., Vallianatos, H., & Spence, J. C. (2016). Socio-cultural determin-
ants of physical activity among Latin American immigrant women in Alberta,
Canada. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 17(4), 1231–1250.
doi:10.1007/s12134-015-0460-y
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1988). Assesment in special and remedial education. Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Schellekens, J., Scholten, C., & Krboer, A. (1983). Visually guided hand movements in
children with minor neurological dysfunction: Response time and movement organ-
ization. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24(1), 89–102.
20 Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)

Schmidt, R. A. (1991). Motor learning and performance: From principles to practice.

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (1999). Motor control and learning: A behavioural emphasis
(3rd ed.). Champaig, IL: Human Kinetics.
Seashore, R. H. (1930). Individual differences in motor skills. The Journal of General
Psychology, 3(1), 38–66.
Silva, P. A., Birkbeck, J., Russell, D. G., & Wilson, J. (1984). Some biological, develop-
mental, and social correlates of gross and fine motor performance in Dunedin Seven
Year Olds. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 10, 35–51.
Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence, objectively determined and measured.
American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.
Spearman, C., & Jones, L. L. (1950). Human ability. London, England: Macmillan.
Sporns, O., & Edelman, G. M. (1993). Solving Bernstein’s problem: A proposal for the
development of coordinated movement by selection. Child development, 64(4),
960–981.
Sugden, D. A., & Keogh, J. F. (1990). Problems in movement skill development. Columbia,
SC: University of Columbia Press.
Sveistrup, H., Burtner, P. A., & Woollacott, M. H. (1992). Two motor control
approaches that may help to identify and teach children with motor impairments.
Pediatric Exercise Science, 4(3), 249–269.
Tabatabainia, M., Ziviani, J., & Maas, F. (1995). Construct validity of the Bruininks-
Oseretsky test of motor proficiency and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales.
Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 42, 3–13.
Thelen, E. (1995). Motor development: A new synthesis. American Psychologist, 50(2), 79.
Thurstone, L., & Thurstone, T. G. (1941). Factorial studies of intelligence. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Thurstone, L. L. (1946). Theories of intelligence. Scientific Monthly, 62, 101–112.
Ulrich, D. A. (2000). Test of gross motor development (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Ulrich, D. A. (1985). Test of gross motor development. Austin, TX: Pro-ED.
Wendler, A. J. (1938). A critical analysis of test elements used in physical education.
Research Quarterly. American Association for Health and Physical Education, 9(1),
64–76.
Whitely, S. E. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic
span. Psychological Bulletin, 93(1), 179–197.
Wiersma, L. D. (2000). Risks and benefits of youth sport specialization: Perspectives and
recommendations. Pediatric Exercise Science, 12(1), 13–22. doi:10.1123/pes.12.1.13
Williams, H. G., Woollacott, M. H., & Ivry, R. (1992). Timing and motor control in
clumsy children. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24(2), 165–172.
Wright, B., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago, MI: MESA Press.
Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2009). Conceptions of ability affect motor learning. Journal
of Motor Behavior, 41(5), 461–467. doi:10.3200/35-08-083
Zwicker, J. G., Yoon, S. W., MacKay, M., Petrie-Thomas, J., Rogers, M., & Synnes, A.
R. (2013). Perinatal and neonatal predictors of developmental coordination disorder
in very low birthweight children. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 98, 118–122.
doi:10.1136/archdischild-2012-302268.
Hands et al. 21

Author Biographies
Beth Hands has been involved in research involving children and adolescents for over three decades.
Her particular research focus involves health-related issues affecting children and adolescents with
Developmental Coordination Disorder and other movement disorders. She is currently a Senior
Research Scholar in the Institute for Health Research at the University of Notre Dame. In 2010,
Beth established the AMPitup program for adolescents with movement disorders, which has assisted
many young people re-engage with physical activity. She is an investigator on many grants and
collaborates with leading researchers around the country and internationally.

Fleur McIntyre is the Head of the Exercise Science program at UNDA and the current Director of
the AMPitup program. Her area of expertise in research relates to motor development and motor
control.

Helen Parker has been involved in research related to motor control and motor development for over
30 years and has an extensive publication record. She was the Dean of the School of Health Sciences
at UNDA before retiring in 2012.