Lúcio F. Ferreira^{1, 2}

Cleverton J. F. de Souza^{1, 3}

Andrea M. Freudenheim¹

¹Laboratório de Comportamento Motor (Lacom), Escola de Educação Física e Esporte Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil

²Centro Universitário Nilton Lins, GEBIMH, Manaus, Amazonas, Brasil

³Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Brasil

RESUMO

Este estudo teve como objectivos investigar a efectividade da lista de checagem do teste ABC do Movimento no contexto manauense (Amazonas/Brasil); e, comparar a capacidade de professores de educação física (PEF) e de sala de aula (PSA) de efectuar uma triagem de crianças com risco de apresentarem desordem coordenativa desenvolvimental (DCD) por meio da lista de checagem (LC). A amostra foi constituída por 30 crianças com 8 anos de idade e 16 professores (8 PEF e 8 PSA). O instrumento utilizado foi o Teste ABC do Movimento. Os resultados indicaram que houve correlação muito baixa entre as listas de checagem e a bateria motora (LCPSA r_s = ,09; p= ,61 e LCPEF r_s = -,12; p= ,49. Quando formados três grupos de acordo com o grau de desordem apresentado, os valores para a sensitividade, especificidade, e valor preditivo positivo ficaram abaixo do esperado. Os resultados evidenciaram que, no contexto manauense, a lista de checagem não foi eficaz como instrumento identificador de DCD em crianças com 8 anos de idade e, que tanto os PSA quanto os PEF não foram efectivos na identificação de crianças com esta desordem.

Palavras-chave: teste ABC do movimento, lista de checagem, professores de educação física, professores de sala de aula, desordem coordenativa desenvolvimental, DCD

ABSTRACT

Effectiveness of movement ABC checklist

This study´s aim was to investigate the effectiveness of  the Movement ABC checklist in the Manaus context (Amazonas/Brazil) and comparing the ability of class teachers (CT) and physical education teachers (PET) to select possible DCD children using the checklist (CL).  The sample was composed by 30 8-year old children and l6 teachers (8 CT and 8 PET).  The Movement ABC Test was used. Results showed very low correlation between the checklist and motor battery (LCPSA rs=,09;p=,6l and LCPEF rs=-.12,p=,49.  Furthermore, as three groups were defined according to the degree of motor disorder sensitivity, specificity and predictable positive values remained below the expected results.  Results evidentiated that, in the Manaus context, the checklist was not an efficient tool to sort out  8-year old schoolchildren affected by DCD and that both, CT and PET teachers were not effective at identifying children affected by this disorder.

Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.

Full text only available in PDF format.

REFERÊNCIAS

1. APA (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4^th ed.).  Washington, DC: American Psychiatry Association.        [ Links ]

2. Bisquerra R, Sarriera JC, Martínez F (2004). Introdução à Estatística. Porto Alegre: Artmed.

4. Chow SMK, Henderson SE, Barnett AL (2001). The movement assessment battery for children: a comparison of 4-year-old to 6-year-old childrem from Hong Kong and the United States. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, New York, v. 55, p. 55-61.

5. Geuze R, Jongmans MJ, Schoemaker MM, Smits-Engelsman BCM (2000). Clinical and research diagnostic criteria or developmental coordination disorder a review and discussion. Human Movement Science, Amsterdam, v. 20, p. 7-47.

6. Henderson SE, Sugden DA (1992). Movement Assessment Battery for Children. London. Psychological Corporation.

7. Losse A, Henderson SE, Elliman D, Hall D, Knight E, Jongmans M (1991). Clumsiness in children-do they grow out of it? A 10-year follow-up study. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology,  London, v. 33, p. 55-68.

8. Miyahara M, Tsuji M, Hanai T, Jongmans M, Barnett A, Henderson SE, Hori M, Nakanishi K, Kageyama H (1998).The movement assessment battery for children: a preliminary investigation of its usefulness in Japan. Human Movement Science, Amsterdam, v. 17, p. 679-697.

9. Junaid K, Harris RS, Fulmer AK, Carswell A (2000). Teacher’s Use of the MABC Checklist to Identify Children with Motor Coordination Disorder. Pediatric Physical Therapy, v 12, p. 158-163.

10. Piek JP, Edwards K (1997). The Identification of children with developmental coordination disorder by class and physical education teachers. British Journal of Educational Pshychology, v 67, p. 55-67.

11. Rösblad B, Gard L (1998). The assessment of children with developmental coordination disorder in Sweden: a preliminary investigation of the suitability of the Movement ABC. Human Movement Science, Amsterdan, v. 17, p. 711-719.

12. Souza CJF, Ferreira LF, Catuzzo MT, Corrêa UC. O Teste ABC do Movimento em crianças de ambientes diferentes. Revista Portuguesa de Ciências do Desporto, vol. 7, nº 1, p. 36-47.

14. 14. Smits-Engelsman BCM, Henderson SE, Michels CGJ (1998). The assessment of children with developmental coordination disorders in the Netherlands: The relationship between the movement assessment battery for children and the korpekoordinations test fur kinder. Human Movement Science, Amsterdan, v. 17, p. 699-709.

15. 15. Sugden DA (1984). Issues in teaching children with movement problems. British Journal of Physical Education, v. 15, p. 68-70.

16. Sugden DA, Wright HC (1998). Motor Coordination Disorders in Children. London: Sage Publications.

17. Sugden D, Sugden L (1991). The assessment of movement skill problems in 7- and 9-year-old children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, v. 61, 329-345.

18. Wright HC, Sugden DA (1996). The Nature of Developmental Coordination Disorder: Inter-and Intragroup Differences. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, v. 13, p. 357-371.

19. Wright HC, Sugden D, Ng R, Tan J (1994). Identification of children with movement problems in Singapore: usefulness of the movement ABC checklist. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, Champaign, v. 11, p. 150-157.

CORRESPONDÊNCIA

EFFE – USP

Laboratório de Comportamento Motor (Lacom)

Av. Prof. Mello Moraes, 65

CEP 05508-900-São Paulo – SP- BRASIL

E-mail: amfreud@usp.br