Assessment & Research

Fine and gross motor skills differ between healthy-weight and obese children.

Gentier et al. (2013) · Research in developmental disabilities 2013
★ The Verdict

Obese children show fine-motor deficits, not just gross-motor delays, so include precision tasks in motor assessments.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who run motor assessments in schools or clinics
✗ Skip if Practitioners working only with feeding or language goals

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Gentier et al. (2013) compared motor skills in healthy-weight and obese children. They used standard tests for fine and gross movement. Kids were neurotypical and school age.

02

What they found

Obese children scored lower on most gross-motor tasks. They also lagged on fine-motor tasks like bead threading and drawing. The gap was clear, not borderline.

03

How this fits with other research

Wagner et al. (2011) saw the same pattern two years earlier: obese teens had higher risk of severe coordination disorder. The new study shows the problem starts younger.

Petrovic et al. (2016) looks like a contradiction. In their sample, kids with ADHD had lower overweight rates than controls. The twist: their ADHD group still had motor problems, but weight stayed down. Method matters—Ilse studied neurotypical kids only, while B et al. mixed ADHD status.

Gentier et al. (2013) also ran a reaction-time follow-up. Same kids, same obesity link: slower and more cautious responses. Together, the papers build a picture that extra weight touches both quick moves and precise moves.

04

Why it matters

Add fine-motor items to every motor screen for obese clients. Tasks like coin stacking or tweezing pom-poms reveal hidden deficits that gross-motor checklists miss. Share the data with parents to justify both movement and precision goals in the same plan.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Drop two fine-motor probes—bead string and 9-pegboard—into your next motor assessment for any obese client

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
quasi experimental
Sample size
68
Population
neurotypical
Finding
negative
Magnitude
medium

03Original abstract

Within the obesity literature, focus is put on the link between weight status and gross motor skills. However, research on fine motor skills in the obese (OB) childhood population is limited. Therefore, the present study focused on possible weight related differences in gross as well as fine motor skill tasks. Thirty-four OB children (12 ♀ and 22 ♂, aged 7-13 years) were recruited prior to participating in a multidisciplinary treatment program at the Zeepreventorium (De Haan, Belgium). Additionally, a control group of 34 age and gender-matched healthy-weight (HW) children was included in the study. Anthropometric measures were recorded and gross and fine motor skills were assessed using the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, second edition (BOT-2). Results were analyzed by independent samples t-tests, multivariate analysis of variance, and a chi-squared test. Being OB was detrimental for all subtests evaluating gross motor skill performance (i.e., upper-limb coordination, bilateral coordination, balance, running speed and agility, and strength). Furthermore, OB children performed worse in fine motor precision and a manual dexterity task, when compared to their HW peers. No group differences existed for the fine motor integration task. Our study provides evidence that lower motor competence in OB children is not limited to gross motor skills alone; OB children are also affected by fine motor skill problems. Further investigation is warranted to provide possible explanations for these differences. It is tentatively suggested that OB children experience difficulties with the integration and processing of sensory information. Future research is needed to explore whether this assumption is correct and what the underlying mechanism(s) could be.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.08.040