Identifying patterns of motor performance, executive functioning, and verbal ability in preschool children: A latent profile analysis.
Preschoolers fall into three skill profiles, so always check motor and self-control alongside language.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Houwen et al. (2019) watched preschoolers do movement games, listen-and-do tasks, and short talk tests.
They fed every score into a computer model that hunts for hidden groups.
What they found
The model found three clear kid types: high in all skills, low in all skills, and mixed (good talk, poor motor).
Kids who looked wiggly or inattentive often landed in the low group, not the mixed group.
How this fits with other research
Leung et al. (2012) also worked with preschoolers and showed one quick rating scale can track classroom readiness. Both papers say you need to look at more than one skill area before you label a child.
Rivero et al. (2020) used brief tests to pick different feeding treatments. Suzanne’s team used brief tests to pick different skill profiles. Same idea: test first, then match the help.
Moya et al. (2022) later warned that many ABA packages still need every part to work. Suzanne’s profiles remind us kids differ, so a full package may waste time for some and still miss needs for others.
Why it matters
If you screen only language, you can miss a child who talks well but trips over every step. Ask parents or teachers two quick questions about balance, pencil grip, or sitting still. If the answer is shaky, add a five-minute motor game to your intake. You will place kids in the right group faster and start the right lessons sooner.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add one gross-motor item (jump forward, stand on one foot) to your intake checklist.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: A relationship between motor performance and cognitive functioning is increasingly being recognized. Yet, little is known about the precise nature of the relationship between both domains, especially in early childhood. AIMS: To identify distinct constellations of motor performance, executive functioning (EF), and verbal ability in preschool aged children; and to explore how individual and contextual variables are related to profile membership. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The sample consisted of 119 3- to 4-year old children (62 boys; 52%). The home based assessments consisted of a standardized motor test (Movement Assessment Battery for Children - 2), five performance-based EF tasks measuring inhibition and working memory, and the Receptive Vocabulary subtest from the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence Third Edition. Parents filled out the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function - Preschool version. Latent profile analysis (LPA) was used to delineate profiles of motor performance, EF, and verbal ability. Chi-square statistics and multinomial logistic regression analysis were used to examine whether profile membership was predicted by age, gender, risk of motor coordination difficulties, ADHD symptomatology, language problems, and socioeconomic status (SES). OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: LPA yielded three profiles with qualitatively distinct response patterns of motor performance, EF, and verbal ability. Quantitatively, the profiles showed most pronounced differences with regard to parent ratings and performance-based tests of EF, as well as verbal ability. Risk of motor coordination difficulties and ADHD symptomatology were associated with profile membership, whereas age, gender, language problems, and SES were not. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our results indicate that there are distinct subpopulations of children who show differential relations with regard to motor performance, EF, and verbal ability. The fact that we found both quantitative as well as qualitative differences between the three patterns of profiles underscores the need for a person-centered approach with a focus on patterns of individual characteristics.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2019 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2018.04.002