Author(s): SCHAERZ, S., PILLING, H., SELLES, D. , Institution: UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE, Country: CANADA, Abstract-ID: 783

Background: Movement competence (MC) and executive function (EF) are tightly interwoven developmental domains that shape, and are shaped by, one another across childhood [1]. Much of the existing literature has quantified this association using decontextualized movement-skill measures and lab-based EF tasks, which may provide less insight into how physical activity experiences and settings nurture co-development [2]. Guided by a bioecological model [3], this study aimed to explain how the content and quality of children’s physical activity, and the conditions that surround it (process, person, context, time), align with distinct MC–EF profiles in child–mother dyads.
Methods: In this explanatory mixed-methods study, nine children (5 boys, 4 girls; 9.7±1.6 years) completed a MC assessment (Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment) and a computerized EF battery assessing inhibitory control (Flanker), working memory (Corsi backward), and cognitive flexibility (Trail Making). Median splits were used to classify children into concordant high MC–EF, concordant low MC–EF, and divergent MC–EF profiles. Over 7 days, children completed a physical activity journal and produced drawings of their physical activities; drawings were used in a visual-elicitation interview to examine the content and quality of physical activity (process). Mothers completed a semi-structured interview to inform person, context, and time. Integration occurred through case profiles linking classifications with qualitative themes.
Results: MC and EF scores supported classification into concordant high (n = 3), concordant low (n = 2), and divergent (n = 4) profiles. Concordant high cases described open-skill, game-based activities with progressive challenge, decision-making, and social reciprocity supported by peers, parents, and coaches. Concordant low cases emphasized predictable, closed-skill activities across home, school, and community contexts. Divergent cases reflected broad activity exposure but inconsistent motor–cognitive alignment, influenced by person factors and contextual and temporal constraints.
Conclusion: Findings highlight patterns consistent with some physical activity being more developmentally supportive, particularly dynamic, open-skill activity with progression and adult or peer scaffolding over time. The apparent “fit” of any activity also depended on bioecological conditions, with person factors, contextual constraints, and time shaping whether experiences were sustained, appropriately challenging, and integrated across cognitive and motor demands. These preliminary patterns warrant replication in larger samples to identify naturally occurring MC–EF groupings and to examine whether similar experience profiles emerge using hierarchical cluster analysis or latent profile analysis.
References:
[1] Ludyga & Herrmann, Psychol Sport Exerc, 2025
[2] Schaerz, Kinesiol Rev, 2025
[3] Bronfenbrenner & Morris, Handbook of Child Psychology, 2006.