@article{MAKHILLTSS20138622469,
    title = {The Impact of Traditional Games on the Gross Motor Skill Development of an Early Childhood},
    journal = {The Social Sciences},
    volume = {8},
    number = {6},
    pages = {590-595},
    year = {2013},
    issn = {1818-5800},
    doi = {sscience.2013.590.595},
    url = {https://makhillpublications.co/view-article.php?issn=1818-5800&doi=sscience.2013.590.595},
    author = {Borhannudin,Saidon,Kok Lian and},
    keywords = {Gross motor development,traditional game,early childhood,children,locomotor},
    abstract = {The development of gross motor skills is fundamental to the 
  advanced movement and specific skills. The development of such skill should 
  be studied at an early childhood because development of gross motor skills which 
  is in line with chronological age allows children to master their locomotor 
  and manipulative skills. This study aimed to determine, the effects of traditional 
  games on the level of gross motor development of early childhood. This study 
  adopts two different modules, namely the traditional games module and the regular 
  physical education module. The research questions were tested by two-phases 
  of study: A descriptive analysis to determine the level of gross motor development 
  and equality of age and MANOVA and MANCOVA analysis to determine the effects 
  of interventions to control the other factors. Gross motor development data 
  were obtained from locomotor and manipulative skills video recordings by using 
  the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) instrument. The overall level of 
  gross motor development research subjects are below the average of 50% based 
  on the percentile score of the GMDQ; year 3 (7.42%), year 2 (11.77%) and year 
  1 (20.56%). The findings also indicate the subject of year 3 very significant 
  problems in three variables, namely; SLS, SMS and GMDQ. This group also experienced 
  a significant delay in the AEL (2.93 years) and AEM (3.42 years) score. MANOVA 
  analysis showed no significant difference in the GMDQ mean for pre-test [F (4.59) 
  = 2:51, p&gt;0.05, R<SUP>2</SUP> = 0.146] between the control and treatment 
  groups. However, there are significant differences in the GMDQ mean for post-test 
  [F (4.59) = 29.81, p&lt;0.01, R<SUP>2</SUP> = 0.669]. Univariate F analysis 
  showed a significant difference for the five dependent variables during the 
  post-test; GMDQ [F (1.62) = 116.16; p&lt;0.001, R<SUP>2</SUP> = 0.65), SLS [F 
  (1.62) = 63.38; p&lt;0.001, R<SUP>2</SUP> = 0.51), AEL [F (1.62) = 36.53; p&lt;0.001, 
  R<SUP>2</SUP> = 0.37) SMS [F (1.62) = 86.23; p&lt;0.001, R<SUP>2</SUP> = 0.58) 
  and AEM [F (1.62) = 48.76; p&lt;0.001, R<SUP>2</SUP> = 0.44). Comparative analysis 
  of the pair showed that the mean of the treatment group is significantly more 
  than the mean of the control group in the GMDQ score (mean difference = 23.25; 
  p&lt;0.001), SLS (mean difference = 3.63; p&lt;0.001), AEL (mean difference 
  = 2.25; p&lt;0.001), SMS (mean difference = 4.13; p&lt;0.001) and AEM (mean 
  difference = 2.01; p&lt;0.001). MANCOVA analysis showed that there are significant 
  effects of the traditional games for the GMDQ mean [F (4.53) = 26.13; p&lt;0.001, 
  R<SUP>2</SUP> = 0.664] after controlling the pre-test score, gender and income 
  factors. In conclusion, the analysis supports the traditional games intervention 
  programs to help improve the level of gross motor development of the treatment 
  group after other factors are being controlled.}
    }