International Journal of

Environmental Research
and Public Health

Article
The Influence of a Table Tennis Physical Activity Program on
the Gross Motor Development of Chinese Preschoolers of
Different Sexes
Ying Gu 1 , Yong Chen 2 , Jiameng Ma 3 , Zhongyu Ren 4 , Huaran Li 5 and Hyunshik Kim 3, *

1 College of Sports Science, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang 110034, China; [email protected]
2 Department of Physical Education, Huaiyin Normal University, Huaian 223300, China;
[email protected]
3 Faculty of Physical Education, Sendai University, Miyagi 9891693, Japan; [email protected]
4 School of Physical Education, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China; [email protected]
5 School of Foreign Languages, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang 110034, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +81-224-55-1592

Abstract: Gross motor locomotion is the basis of various sensory motor locomotion. Interventions
helping preschoolers develop gross motor skills (GMS) could provide a solid foundation for complex
motor skills. This study analyzed a table tennis physical activity program’s influence on preschoolers’
GMS development with 104 preschoolers (experimental group (EG): N = 52, 25 boys, 27 girls; control
group (CG): N = 52, 25 boys, 27 girls). The EG conducted table tennis physical activities three times
per week for 12 weeks. Preschoolers’ GMSs were assessed using the Test of Gross Motor Development
(second edition). After 12 weeks, both the male and female EGs had significantly improved scores





 for GMS, locomotor subtest, gallop, hop, leap, slide, object control subtest, strike a stationary ball,
Citation: Gu, Y.; Chen, Y.; Ma, J.; Ren,
stationary dribble, catch, overarm throw, and underhand roll (p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001). The
Z.; Li, H.; Kim, H. The Influence of a female EG also showed significant improvement for the run, horizontal jump, and catch in the post-
Table Tennis Physical Activity test. Both the male and female EGs significantly outperformed the control group in their post-test
Program on the Gross Motor scores for GMS, locomotor subtest, object control subtest, strike a stationary ball, overarm throw,
Development of Chinese Preschoolers and underhand roll (p < 0.05). The female EG also showed significant differences in slide scores
of Different Sexes. Int. J. Environ. Res. (p < 0.05). Therefore, table tennis physical activities can promote preschoolers’ GMS development,
Public Health 2021, 18, 2627. https:// especially object control skills. The research results provide an empirical basis for preschoolers’
doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052627
physical education. Meanwhile, our findings have important implications for preschoolers’ GMS
development and table tennis’ popularization in Chinese kindergartens.
Academic Editor: Jitse P. van Dijk

Keywords: table tennis; preschoolers; gross motor development; physical locomotion skills; object
Received: 7 February 2021
control skills
Accepted: 1 March 2021
Published: 5 March 2021

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

1. Introduction
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil- As an essential human skill, locomotion is the main instrument by which individuals
iations. interact with the external environment, and it plays a dual role in ensuring individuals’
survival and development [1]. The locomotion performed by gross muscles is called gross
motor locomotion, and the development of gross muscles plays a crucial role in the process
of motor development. Generally speaking, gross motor refers to locomotion in which the
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
gross muscles of the trunk and limbs participate [2], and it includes the motor skills of
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
physical locomotion and object control [3]. Children at the preschool and early education
This article is an open access article
stage are the ideal learning subjects for developing gross motor skills [4]. For them, gross
distributed under the terms and motor skills are the earliest-developed motor skills, and their development is beneficial
conditions of the Creative Commons to their physical health, mental cognition, and social adaptation [5–7]. Gross motor skills
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// play an important role in preschoolers’ growth, development, and formation of an active
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ lifestyle, and their sports psychology, sports interest, sports habits, sports cognition, and
4.0/). comprehensive sports quality are optimally developed through these skills’ promotion [8].

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2627. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052627 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2627 2 of 13

Furthermore, the development of gross motor skills can help preschoolers improve their
confidence when participating in sports and lays a solid foundation for them to learn
complex specialized skills in the future [9]. If such skills are not mastered by preschoolers,
they may experience lifelong difficulties in learning motor skills in later life. Therefore,
acquiring gross motor skills is crucial for their future development [10].
Gross motor skills are necessary to allow preschoolers to stably control their bod-
ies and other objects while exploring the environment [11], and these skills need to be
learned and strengthened through intervention [12], that is, planned exercise activities
that are appropriate for preschoolers’ development [13]. Relevant studies have shown
that participating in additional training of gross motor skills could significantly improve
preschoolers’ performance in these skills, especially in physical locomotion and object
control [14,15]. In China, there are few kindergartens that use intervention programs as
physical education courses [16]; therefore, there is a lack of targeted exercises for preschool
children’s large muscle motor skills. This leads to some preschoolers in the kindergarten
physical education curriculum activities having gross motor skills that have not been fully
developed. Further, there is scarce relevant literature on this topic [17]. Some related
studies in China found that some sports programs, such as football [18], gymnastics [19],
and badminton [20], had a promoting effect on the development of gross motor skills of
preschool children. Furthermore, preschoolers’ physical activity was closely related to
active family participation [21].
Table tennis is the most popular sport in China [22]. Because of the huge number
of people who play table tennis, we focused on table tennis in our study. By learning
table tennis, preschoolers can cultivate their ability to coordinate between their brain,
hands, eyes, and feet, which is essential for the development of their speed, coordination,
reflexes, endurance, flexibility, agility, and general physical quality. Furthermore, playing
table tennis can also promote the development of preschoolers’ brains, especially their
agility of thinking and stability of attention, as well as stimulate the development of their
gross motor skills [23]. Previous studies have shown that table tennis could help improve
preschoolers’ gross motor skills [24]. Most of these focused on primary school students
and teenagers, while only a few studies constituted table tennis-related interventions on
preschoolers’ gross motor skills. Therefore, this research takes the table tennis project
in Chinese kindergartens as the starting point to explore the influence of table tennis on
preschoolers’ GMS, and by comparing the difference between experimental group and
control group on children’s gross motor skills, the pros and cons of the two programs are
analyzed. In the course of their research, Foweather [25] found that boys and girls have
different levels of gross motor development in the intervention process. In order to under-
stand the impact on boys and girls during the intervention process, we separately analyzed
the boys and girls and conducted empirical explorations to promote the development of
children’s gross movements.
The Test of Gross Motor Development, second edition (TGMD-2) [3] attaches impor-
tance to the development of preschoolers’ gross motor skills. It is rich in content and easy
to perform. Since the TGMD-2 has been widely used in the United States [3], Australia [26],
Brazil [27], Belgium [28], and other countries, its reliability and validity can be confirmed,
and Chinese scholars believe that it is also suitable for China [29,30]. Therefore, in this
study, the TGMD-2 was selected as the test tool, 3- to 6-year-old preschoolers were taken as
the study subjects, and a table tennis program was used to improve preschoolers’ gross
motor ability and lay a solid foundation for cultivating their lifelong physical exercise
awareness. The study aimed to formulate appropriate table tennis courses and promote the
playing of table tennis in kindergartens by studying the influence of table tennis physical
activity programs on the gross motor skills of Chinese preschoolers.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2627 3 of 13

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Objects
The samples of this study were from five-star kindergartens (the highest level of
kindergartens in China) in Liaoning Province, China. This samples were 104 children aged
3–6 years (50 boys, 54 girls). Boys and girls were randomly divided into two groups: one
group was an experimental group with 52 children (25 boys and 27 girls), the other group
was a control group with 52 children (25 boys and 27 girls). The study participants’ basic
information is shown in Tables 1–3. The study was conducted with the consent of their
parents or guardians and approved by the Human Ethics Research Committee of the School
of Physical Education and Sports Science, Shenyang Normal University (SYNU19-09). In
this study, homogeneity tests were performed on participants.

Table 1. Total subject variance homogeneity test.

EG (n = 52) CG (n = 52) Levene’s Test T-Test

Variable
M ± SD F p T p
Age (month) 55.190 ± 8.702 55.190 ± 8.997 0.068 0.770 0.000 1.000
Height (cm) 107.171 ± 7.649 107.235 ± 7.717 0.099 0.754 −0.042 0.966
Weight (kg) 17.504 ± 3.432 17.529 ± 2.845 0.661 0.418 −0.040 0.968
CG: control group; EG: experimental group; M: mean.

Table 2. Male subject variance homogeneity test.

EG (n = 25) CG (n = 25) Levene’s Test T-Test

Variable
M ± SD F p T p
Age (month) 54.760 ± 8.927 54.880 ± 8.983 0.009 0.923 −0.047 0.962
Height (cm) 107.280 ± 7.431 107.868 ± 6.956 0.000 0.999 −0.298 0.774
Weight (kg) 18.140 ± 3.462 17.596 ± 2.554 0.778 0.382 0.632 0.530
CG: control group; EG: experimental group; M: mean.

Table 3. Female subject variance homogeneity test.

EG (n = 27) CG (n = 27) Levene’s Test T-Test

Variable
M ± SD F p T p
Age (month) 55.590 ± 8.639 55.480 ± 9.171 0.254 0.617 0.046 0.964
Height (cm) 107.070 ± 7.986 106.648 ± 8.451 0.139 0.711 0.189 0.851
Weight (kg) 16.915 ± 3.359 17.467 ± 3.139 0.015 0.904 −0.624 0.536
CG: control group; EG: experimental group; M: mean.

The results of the homogeneity test showed no significant difference in the basic
characteristics of the total, male, and female samples between the experimental group and
control group (p > 0.05). Therefore, all groups had homogeneity.

2.2. Study Instrument

The TGMD-2 was used to measure and evaluate preschool children’s level of gross
motor development [3]. Their physical locomotion ability and object control ability were
both tested. The test of physical locomotion ability includes a test of six actions—running,
galloping, hopping, horizontal jumping, leaping, and sliding—while the test of object
control ability also consists of six actions—striking a stationary ball, catching, kicking,
stationary dribbling, overhand throwing, and underhand rolling. These standards could
be used to measure whether children’s trunk and limbs were coordinated, whether the
formation of their gross motor skills was correct, and whether a natural and flexible motor
skill pattern could be achieved when they were completing a certain motor skill. In the
pre-test and post-test, each action in the TGMD-2 was tested twice to get the best result.
Scores were given according to 3–5 criteria, for 1 point each. If a child failed to meet any
 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2627 4 of 13

criterion, 0 points would be given. The original score for physical locomotion was 48, while
the original score for object control was also 48.

2.3. Study Procedures

Based on the theoretical system of children’s table tennis training [31–34] and basic
table tennis motor skills [35], this study constructed the training of physical locomotion
skills and object control skills [3] according to the TGMD-2 and table tennis courses
designed to develop preschoolers’ gross motor skills. The experiment began in October
2019, and classes occurred three times a week, for 50 min each time, for a total of 12 weeks.
Classes for the experimental group and control group were completed together with two
highly trained physical education teachers. The experimental group carried out special
table tennis training according to the design content (shown in Table 4). The control
group carried out regular physical education courses (such as sports games and outdoor
activities) formulated by the kindergarten according to the index system content of China’s
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, x
“Guidelines for Kindergarten Education (Trial) [36]” and “Guidelines for the Development 5 of 13
of Children Aged 3–6” [37]. The two testers who tested the children before and after the
experiment had a full understanding of the TGMD-2 and rich field experience in sports
tests for children. The test environment and tools had alsotobeen
forward checked
and actively to ensure
participate that
in the the
next
test could be completed successfully (shown in Figure 1). class.

Figure
Figure 1. 1. Study
Study procedures.
procedures.

2.4. Mathematical Statistics

2.4. Mathematical Statistics
In the pre-test, an independent sample T-test was conducted on the basic characteristics
In the pre-test, an independent sample T-test was conducted on the basic character-
of the experimental group and control group. In terms of age, height, weight, and basic
istics of the experimental group and control group. In terms of age, height, weight, and
motor skills, there was no statistical difference between the groups (p > 0.05). Therefore,
basic motor skills, there was no statistical difference between the groups (p > 0.05). There-
the experimental group and control group were considered homogeneous. In the post-test,
fore,
the the
basicexperimental group and control
data of the experimental group group were group
and control considered homogeneous.
were analyzed In the
for mean and
post-test, the basic data of the experimental group and control group were
standard deviation. An independent sample T-test was conducted between the two groups. analyzed for
mean and standard
Additionally, deviation.
a paired sample AnT-test
independent sample T-test
was performed on thewas conducted
pre-post between
data in the
the groups,
two
while an independent sample T-test was conducted to ascertain the differences between in
groups. Additionally, a paired sample T-test was performed on the pre-post data the
the groups, while
experimental an independent
group sample
and control group in T-test was conducted
the pre-test to ascertain
and post-test. The T-testtheindicated
differ-
ences
that between the experimental
the differences group
had statistical and control
significance (p <group
0.05).in
Inthe
thispre-test and post-test.
study, SPSS WIN 25.0The was
T-test indicated that the differences
used for statistical analysis. had statistical significance (p < 0.05). In this study,
SPSS WIN 25.0 was used for statistical analysis.

3. Results
3.1. Results of Male Preschoolers
As shown in Table 5, the gross motor skills score of the male experimental group was
62.7 ± 11.6 in the pre-test and 75.4 ± 11.6 in the post-test. Thus, the post-test score increased
by 12.6 ± 2.86, which showed a significant difference (p < 0.001). The gross motor skills
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2627 5 of 13

Table 4. Table tennis course content.

Module Theme Content Function

In this module, characters are shaped through Each activity of the module has its own anthropomorphic name
certain story plots (or scripts) so as to express (e.g., Little Bear Lifting Ball, Monkey Picking Fruit, Little
To stimulate preschoolers’ curiosity, attention, and
Narrative Module the main idea of the designed activities [38]. Swallows Flying Together, Ant Moving House, Squirrel Picking
interest in learning.
The story-telling method is also used to guide Fruit, Little Snake Racing, Cat Fishing, Rabbit Shooting, Chicken
preschoolers into the theme. Pecking Rice, Bird Catching Bug, etc. [39].
Connected to the narrative module, the game For instance, in the activity of Ants Moving House, preschoolers To improve preschoolers’ skills, guide them to
module aims to stimulate preschoolers’ can imitate ants moving by moving ping-pong balls. By doing so, experience the sense of achievement and honor, enjoy
Game Module
enthusiasm for games through previously each child can play a role in the activity in single or the pleasure of success and victory, and enhance their
imported stories. multi-player cooperation. self-confidence.
To cultivate preschoolers’ ability to coordinate
Pick up the ball, throw the ball, change the ball, throw the ball
Get to know the ball between brain, hands, and eyes, and enhance their
overhand, pass the ball, and catch the ball.
sensory integration and coordination.
Skills Module
Dribble the stationary ball, dribble the rebounded ball, toss the
To exercise preschoolers’ motor ability and sense of
Perceive the ball ball, and bump the ball, cover the ball, and hit the ball against
direction and improve their body balance.
the wall.
Mimic locomotion: grip, swing, forehand swing, and backhand
To form preschoolers’ muscle memory and
swing, flat serve.
Imitation consolidate their motor skills by imitating locomotion
Mimic footwork: single step, slide step, stride step, cross step,
of the upper and lower limbs.
parallel step, single-foot jump, double-foot jump.
To exercise the flexibility, control, and coordination of
preschoolers’ limbs, cultivate their ability to
Forehand flat shot, forehand attack, backhand attack, forehand
cooperate with each other, and guide them to
Mastering skills alternate attack, footwork movement attack, forehand rallies,
experience the happiness brought by table tennis and
backhand rallies, and simple tactical games.
the sense of achievement after hitting the
ball successfully.
To relax the body in order to prevent injury, improve
Relaxing Stretch each other slowly, jogging, deep breathing, massage.
Summary Module retraining ability, and promote health.
To stimulate preschoolers’ gumption, enhance their
Interact with preschoolers in plain child language to find out self-confidence, and promote their interest in the
Summarizing and communicating
whether they grasp and understand the content of the course. course. To make them look forward to and actively
participate in the next class.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2627 6 of 13

3. Results
3.1. Results of Male Preschoolers
As shown in Table 5, the gross motor skills score of the male experimental group
was 62.7 ± 11.6 in the pre-test and 75.4 ± 11.6 in the post-test. Thus, the post-test score
increased by 12.6 ± 2.86, which showed a significant difference (p < 0.001). The gross motor
skills score of the male control group was 61.4 ± 1.20 in the pre-test and 66.8 ± 12.2 in the
post-test. Thus, the post-test score increased by 5.40 ± 3.14, which showed no significant
difference. In the post-test, the gross motor skills score of the experimental group was
75.4 ± 11.6, while that of the control group was 66.8 ± 12.2, which corresponded to a
significant difference (p < 0.05). In sum, there was a significant difference in the gross motor
skills scores of the male experimental group and control group between the pre-test and
post-test (p < 0.001).

Table 5. Comparison of total gross motor skills pre- and post-test scores between the male preschooler
EG and CG.

Pre Post Pre–Post Difference

Object Group T
M ± SD
EG (n = 25) 62.7 ± 11.6 75.4 ± 11.6 12.6 ± 2.86 −3.86 ***
Total GMS Score CG (n = 25) 61.4 ± 1.20 66.8 ± 12.2 5.40 ± 3.14 −1.58
T 0.40 2.55 * 8.54 ***
CG: control group; EG: experimental group; GMS: gross motor skills. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.

Regarding locomotor subtest skills, as shown in Table 6, in the male experimental

group, the scores for the locomotor subtest, gallop, hop, leap, and slide showed significant
differences between the pre-test and post-test (p < 0.05, p < 0.01), while there was no
significant difference between them in the run and horizontal jumps in the pre-test and
post-test. In the control group, the locomotor subtest score was significantly different
between the pre-test and post-test (p < 0.05), while in the run, gallop, hop, leap, horizontal
jump, and slide, there were no significant differences between them in the pre-test and post-
test. In the post-test, the locomotor subtest score of the experimental group was significantly
different from that of the control group (p < 0.05). There was also no significant difference
in the run, gallop, hop, leap, horizontal jump, and slide between the experimental group
and control group. The scores for the locomotor subtest, gallop, horizontal jump, and slide
were significantly different between the experimental group and control group (p < 0.05,
p < 0.01, p < 0.001), while there was no significant difference in the run, hop, leap, and
horizontal jumps between the experimental group and control group.
Regarding the object control subtest skills, as shown in Table 6, in the male experimen-
tal group, there were significant differences in the scores for the object control subtest, strike
a stationary ball, stationary dribble, catch, overarm throw, and underhand roll (p < 0.05,
p < 0.01, p < 0.001) between the pre-test and post-test. There was no significant difference
in kick in the experimental group between the pre-test and post-test, while in the con-
trol group, there was no significant difference in the scores for the object control subtest,
strike a stationary ball, stationary dribble, catch, kick, overarm throw, and underhand roll
between the pre-test and post-test. Compared with the control group, the experimental
group presented significant differences in their scores for the object control subtest, strike a
stationary ball, overarm throw, and underhand roll (p < 0.05), but no significant difference
in the stationary dribble, catch, and kick in the post-test. Hence, there were significant
differences in the scores for the object control subtest, strike a stationary ball, stationary
dribble, catch, overarm throw, and underhand roll (p < 0.01, p < 0.001), but no significant
difference in the kick between the experimental group and control group in the pre-test
and post-test.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2627 7 of 13

Table 6. Comparison of locomotor subtest skills and object control subtest skills between male EG and CG pre- and
post-test intervention.

Pre Post Pre–Post Difference

Object Group T
M ± SD
EG (n = 25) 34.1 ± 6.10 39.8 ± 6.11 5.72 ± 2.01 −3.33 **
Locomotor subtest
CG (n = 25) 32.1 ± 5.81 35.6 ± 5.70 3.58 ± 2.69 −2.19
score
T 1.19 2.49 * 7.70 ***
EG (n = 25) 6.76 ± 1.01 7.42 ± 1.01 0.48 ± 0.65 −1.69
Run CG (n = 25) 6.32 ± 1.41 6.84 ± 1.07 0.52 ± 0.99 −1.47
T 1.27 1.36 −0.177
EG (n = 25) 4.88 ± 1.20 5.80 ± 1.32 0.92 ± 0.64 −2.57 *
Gallop CG (n = 25) 4.76 ± 1.23 5.12 ± 1.05 0.36 ± 0.49 −1.11
T 0.35 2.01 3.47 **
EG (n = 25) 5.84 ± 2.17 7.24 ± 2.39 1.40 ± 1.04 −2.17 *
Locomotor Hop CG (n = 25) 5.32 ± 2.41 6.28 ± 2.21 0.96 ± 1.10 −1.47
Subtest Skills
T 0.80 1.48 1.45
EG (n = 25) 5.04 ± 1.06 5.72 ± 0.981 0.68 ± 0.63 −2.46 *
Leap CG (n = 25) 5.00 ± 1.04 5.40 ± 0.957 0.40 ± 0.66 −1.41
T 0.14 1.22 1.56
EG (n = 25) 5.80 ± 2.27 6.60 ± 1.83 0.80 ± 0.71 −1.37
Horizontal jump CG (n = 25) 5.28 ± 1.70 5.88 ± 1.59 0.60 ± 0.76 −1.29
T 0.92 1.49 0.961
EG (n = 25) 5.76 ± 2.01 7.20 ± 1.50 1.44 ± 1.16 −2.88 **
Slide CG (n = 25) 5.40 ± 1.56 6.12 ± 1.76 0.72 ± 0.74 −1.45
T 0.68 2.33 2.62 *
EG (n = 25) 28.60 ± 6.56 35.60 ± 6.68 6.92 ± 2.08 −3.70 **
Object control subtest
CG (n = 25) 29.32 ± 7.02 31.16 ± 7.19 1.84 ± 1.38 −0.92
score
T −0.35 2.24 * 10.19 ***
EG (n = 25) 5.64 ± 1.91 7.12 ± 1.83 1.84 ± 0.77 −2.79 **
Strike a stationary CG (n = 25) 5.60 ± 1.89 5.76 ± 1.86 0.16 ± 0.37 −0.30
ball T 0.07 2.61 * 7.71 ***
EG (n = 25) 3.16 ± 1.80 4.60 ± 1.73 1.44 ± 1.08 −2.89 **
Stationary dribble CG (n = 25) 3.16 ± 1.77 3.84 ± 1.99 0.68 ± 0.75 −1.28
T 0.000 1.44 2.89 **
EG (n = 25) 4.08 ± 1.26 4.84 ± 1.34 0.76 ± 0.83 −2.07 *
Object Control
Catch CG (n = 25) 4.20 ± 1.44 4.28 ± 1.93 0.08 ± 0.28 −0.20
Subtest Skills
T −0.31 1.43 3.88 ***
EG (n = 25) 4.29 ± 1.58 5.64 ± 1.55 0.72 ± 0.61 −1.63
Kick CG (n = 25) 5.12 ± 1.74 5.68 ± 1.80 0.56 ± 0.65 −1.12
T −0.43 −0.08 0.89
EG (n = 25) 5.48 ± 1.23 6.80 ± 1.23 1.32 ± 0.85 −3.80 ***
Overarm throw CG (n = 25) 5.56 ± 1.42 5.84 ± 1.43 0.28 ± 0.46 0.70
T −0.21 2.55 * 5.37 ***
EG (n = 25) 5.44 ± 1.23 6.56 ± 1.39 1.12 ± 0.93 −3.02 **
Underhand roll CG (n = 25) 5.68 ± 1.35 5.76 ± 1.33 0.08 ± 0.28 −0.21
T −0.66 2.08 * 5.37 ***
CG: control group; EG: experimental group; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

3.2. Results of Female Preschoolers

As shown in Table 7, the gross motor skills score of the female experimental group
was 59.48 ± 10.52 in the pre-test and 72.41 ± 10.00 in the post-test. Thus, the post-test score
increased by 12.93 ± 3.30, which showed a significant difference (p < 0.001). The gross motor
skills score of the female control group was 60.93 ± 10.65 in the pre-test and 66.07 ± 10.11 in
the post-test. Thus, the post-test score increased by 5.15 ± 2.20, which showed no significant
difference. In the post-test, the gross motor skills score of the experimental group was
72.41 ± 10.00, while that of the control group was 66.07 ± 10.11, which demonstrated a
significant difference (p < 0.05). To summarize, there was a significant difference in gross
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2627 8 of 13

motor skills scores between the female experimental group and control group in the pre-test
and post-test (p < 0.001).

Table 7. Comparison of total gross motor skills pre- and post-test scores between the female
preschooler EG and CG.

Pre Post Pre-Post Difference

Object Group T
M ± SD
EG (n = 27) 59.48 ± 10.52 72.41 ± 10.00 12.93 ± 3.30 −4.63 ***
Total GMS score CG (n = 27) 60.93 ± 10.65 66.07 ± 10.11 5.15 ± 2.20 −1.82
T −0.501 2.31 * 10.19 ***
CG: control group; EG: experimental group; GMS: gross motor skills. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.

Regarding locomotor subtest skills, as shown in Table 8, in the female experimental

group, the score of the locomotor subtest, run, gallop, hop, leap, horizontal jump, and slide
showed significant differences in the pre-test and post-test (p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001). In
the control group, the score for the locomotor subtest, run, gallop, hop, leap, horizontal
jump, and slide showed no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test. Com-
pared with the control group, the experimental group presented significant differences in
their score for the slide (p < 0.05) but no difference in their scores for the locomotor subtest,
run, gallop, hop, leap, and horizontal jump in the post-test. The score for the locomotor
subtest, hop, leap, and horizontal jump between the experimental group and control group
were significantly different in the pre-test and post-test (p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001), while
there were no significant differences in the run, gallop, and horizontal jump between the
experimental group and control group in the pre-test and post-test.

Table 8. Comparison of locomotor subtest skills and object control subtest skills between female EG and CG pre- and
post-intervention.

Pre Post Pre–Post Difference

Object Group T
M ± SD
EG (n = 27) 33.48 ± 5.83 39.11 ± 4.77 5.63 ± 2.62 −3.88 ***
Locomotor subtest
CG (n = 27) 33.74 ± 6.24 36.70 ± 5.51 2.96 ± 1.63 −1.85
score
T −0.16 1.72 4.49 ***
EG (n = 27) 6.11 ± 1.09 6.70 ± 1.03 0.59 ± 0.80 −2.06 *
Run CG (n = 27) 6.44 ± 1.12 6.85 ± 1.23 0.41 ± 0.69 −1.27
T −1.11 −0.48 0.91
EG (n = 27) 5.04 ± 1.13 5.74 ± 1.06 0.70 ± 0.54 −2.37 *
Gallop CG (n = 27) 4.93 ± 1.52 5.44 ± 1.25 0.52 ± 0.58 −1.37
T 0.31 0.94 1.21
EG (n = 27) 6.22 ± 2.62 7.59 ± 2.02 1.37 ± 1.15 −2.15 *
Locomotor Hop CG (n = 27) 6.19 ± 2.43 6.82 ± 2.06 0.63 ± 0.79 −1.03
subtest skills
T 0.05 1.40 2.76 **
EG (n = 27) 4.63 ± 1.01 5.41 ± 1.01 0.78 ± 0.64 −2.84 **
Leap CG (n = 27) 4.70 ± 0.95 5.04 ± 1.19 0.33 ± 0.62 −1.14
T −0.28 1.23 2.59 *
EG (n = 27) 5.74 ± 1.63 6.59 ± 1.42 0.85 ± 1.03 −2.05 *
Horizontal jump CG (n = 27) 5.96 ± 2.05 6.44 ± 1.67 0.48 ± 0.64 −0.95
T −0.44 0.35 1.59
EG (n = 27) 5.74 ± 1.58 7.07 ± 1.21 1.33 ± 1.33 −3.48 **
Slide CG (n = 27) 5.52 ± 1.85 6.11 ± 1.65 0.59 ± 0.75 −1.24
T 0.48 2.45 * 2.52 *
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2627 9 of 13

Table 8. Cont.

Pre Post Pre–Post Difference

Object Group T
M ± SD
EG (n = 27) 26.00 ± 6.36 33.30 ± 6.32 7.30 ± 2.09 −4.23 ***
Object control subtest
CG (n = 27) 27.19 ± 5.98 29.37 ± 5.81 2.19 ± 1.57 −1.36
score
T −0.71 2.38 * 10.16 ***
EG (n = 27) 4.37 ± 2.15 6.04 ± 1.79 1.67 ± 0.83 −3.10 **
Strike a stationary CG (n = 27) 4.70 ± 2.16 5.00 ± 1.98 0.30 ± 0.47 −0.53
ball T −0.57 2.02 * 7.47 ***
EG (n = 27) 2.82 ± 2.00 4.52 ± 1.95 1.70 ± 0.95 −3.17 **
Stationary dribble CG (n = 27) 3.22 ± 1.99 3.78 ± 2.06 0.56 ± 0.64 −1.01
T −0.75 1.36 5.19 ***
EG (n = 27) 4.00 ± 1.30 4.78 ± 1.37 0.78 ± 0.58 −2.14 *
Object control
Catch CG (n = 27) 4.15 ± 1.20 4.30 ± 1.14 0.15 ± 0.36 −0.47
subtest skills
T −0.44 1.41 4.80 ***
EG (n = 27) 3.89 ± 1.37 4.70 ± 1.51 0.81 ± 0.79 −2.08 *
Kick CG (n = 27) 4.00 ± 1.59 4.52 ± 1.70 0.52 ± 0.80 −1.16
T −0.28 0.42 1.37
EG (n = 27) 5.37 ± 1.45 6.56 ± 1.16 1.19 ± 0.83 −3.78 ***
Overarm throw CG (n = 27) 5.44 ± 1.22 5.85 ± 1.03 0.41 ± 0.64 −1.33
T −0.23 2.37 * 3.85 ***
EG (n = 27) 5.56 ± 1.31 6.70 ± 1.44 1.15 ± 0.82 −3.07 **
Underhand roll CG (n = 27) 5.67 ± 1.14 5.93 ± 1.39 0.26 ± 0.53 −0.75
T −0.33 2.03 * 4.75 ***
CG: control group; EG: experimental group; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Regarding object control subtest skills, as shown in Table 8, in the female experimental
group, there were significant differences in their scores for the object control subtest, strike a
stationary ball, stationary dribble, catch, kick overarm throw, and underhand roll (p < 0.05,
p < 0.01, p < 0.001) between the pre-test and post-test. Moreover, in the control group, there
was no significant difference in their scores for the object control subtest, strike a stationary
ball, stationary dribble, catch, kick, overarm throw, and underhand roll between the pre-
test and post-test. Compared with the control group, the experimental group presented
significant differences in their scores for the object control subtest, strike a stationary ball,
overarm throw, and underhand roll (p < 0.05), but no significant difference in the stationary
dribble, catch, and kick in the post-test. Hence, there were significant differences in the
object control subtest score, strike a stationary ball, stationary dribble, catch, overarm
throw, and underhand roll (p < 0.001), but no significant difference in kick between the
experimental group and control group in the pre-test and post-test.

4. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to analyze the influence of table tennis on the gross
motor development of preschoolers of different sexes in China through a table tennis
physical activity program. A total of 104 preschoolers were selected as study subjects, and
the TGMD-2 [3] was used as the test tool. The results were as follows:
In the male and female experimental groups, the total scores for gross motor skills,
physical locomotion, and object control improved significantly (p < 0.01), while no sig-
nificant change occurred in the control group between the pre-test and post-test. The
results showed that the table tennis program could effectively improve preschoolers’ gross
motor skills, including physical locomotion skills and object control skills. In their study of
78 preschoolers, Šalaj et al. [40] found that children who participated in sports activities
had better performance in a motor skills test, which is consistent with the results of our
study. Robinson et al. [41] conducted exercise intervention on 113 preschoolers in the
United States, testing them with the TGMD-2, and the research results showed that the
gross motor skills of preschoolers could be significantly improved. Mostafavi et al. [42]
conducted a Sports, Play, and Active Recreation for Kids (SPARK) course for eight weeks
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2627 10 of 13

with 90 children aged 4–6 years in Iran, and their results showed that SPARK courses had
higher efficacy in promoting basic motor skills than common physical education courses,
thus also confirming the results of our study. Further, the study by Ping et al. [17] on the
influence of a physical activity program on children’s gross motor development suggests
that a table tennis program could significantly improve children’s gross motor ability. To
some extent, it could also improve children’s physique level and promote their physical
health. Some other previous literature has presented similar results, including the study
by Shengkou et al. [43] on the physical activity exercises of 289 children in China, which
showed that physical activity programs could promote the development of children’s gross
motor skills.
Compared with the control group, the experimental group of male children showed
significant improvement in total score for gross motor skills, physical locomotion, and
object control (p < 0.05), while the experimental group of female children also presented
significant improvement in total score for gross motor skills and object control (p < 0.05).
The study conducted by Jianlong et al. [44] on 2136 preschoolers in China showed that
children in the experimental group outperformed those in the control group in terms
of physical locomotion skills and object control skills. Šalaj et al. [40] also believed that
children who participated in organized exercise programs had better performance in
motor development than those who did not. In the current study, the post-test results of
the experimental group and control group were similar to those of Šalaj et al. [40], but
differed in that the total score of female children’s physical locomotion skills did not show
a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test, perhaps because of the different
test content. Jianlong et al. [44] used a three-stage modern physical teaching method, while
Šalaj et al. [40] used a mix of various sports methods.
In the current study, the male children in the experimental group presented significant
improvement in the slide, stationary dribble, striking a stationary ball, overhand throw,
underhand roll, leap, hop, horizontal jump, and catch (p < 0.05, p < 0.01), while the female
children presented significant improvement in the slide, stationary dribble, overhand throw,
and underhand roll in the post-test (p < 0.05). This showed that table tennis could improve
the skills of both male and female children in the slide, stationary dribble, overhand
throw, and underhand roll, while the non-development of other motor skills might have
been caused by various factors, such as individual growth, living habits, different family
education ideas about different genders, and the like. In the study by Foweather et al. [25]
on 99 children, the male children were found to be more active than the female children,
which could support this idea. Therefore, more programs showed significant changes for
male children than for female children in the post-tests.
Brian A. et al. [45] conducted an eight-week physical activity intervention study on
preschoolers in the United States, using the TGMD-2 test, and the results of the study
showed positive changes in the object manipulation ability of preschoolers. Honglu’s [46]
study on Chinese children’s ball-based physical activity showed that ball games could
promote their basic motor skills and improve the development of their physical locomotion
and object control ability. Furthermore, the influence of ball games on the development of
object control skills was greater than that on the development of physical locomotion skills.
Our test showed the same influence from balls. In our study, besides the slide, there was
no significant difference in the physical locomotion or other motor skills of female children,
perhaps because of the locomotive characteristics of the table tennis activity itself.
In Yuanyuan’s [47] study of 177 children aged 5–6 years, the children’s kicking ability
was not improved effectively. Since her study was similar to ours, this may have been
because of the lack of “kicking” in both experiments, with children seldom using such
actions during the experiment. Šalaj et al. [40] pointed out that children who participated
in multiple sports outperformed those who did not (or who only participated in a single
sport) and suggested that multi-sport participation could be recommended as the best
form of exercise for preschoolers. In our study, there was no significant difference in the
stride, gallop, or kick of male children and the stride, leap, hop, horizontal jump, gallop,
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2627 11 of 13

catch, and kick between the experimental group and control group in the post-test. This
showed that the influence of certain skills on gross motor development was limited by
the characteristics of certain sports. Therefore, we should design diverse sports programs
and comprehensive development methods to promote the development of children’s
gross motor skills. Choosing appropriate sports programs [48] could effectively promote
preschoolers’ motor development [49].
Some limitations need to be considered in the interpretation of our study findings.
First, due to the characteristics of table tennis, the results of this study on gross motor
development might differ from those of other sports. Second, in view of single sports’
technical limitations, sports programs for children with diverse educational outcomes
should be designed to achieve the goal of all-round development of children’s skills.
Third, this study did not consider the influence of children’s personal qualities, their
family’s economic and cultural levels, or their parents’ educational views. Therefore, the
representativeness of the sample was limited. Fourth, the control group was also limited
by other uncontrollable factors besides the physical education course, such as after-school
play, extracurricular activities, etc. Those factors might also have led to differences between
our study results and those of others. Nevertheless, the study results provide powerful
support for the development of gross motor skills among Chinese preschoolers. Since this
study focused on Chinese preschoolers, the results are of great significance for Chinese
preschool education institutions in designing better physical activity training courses and
more effective intervention programs for preschool children in the future.

5. Conclusions
In the male sample, there was significant improvement in the scores for gross motor
skills, locomotor subtest, gallop, hop, leap, slide, object control subtest, strike a stationary
ball, stationary dribble, catch, overarm throw, and underhand roll (p < 0.05, p < 0.01,
p < 0.001) in the experimental group between the pre-test and post-test. Compared with
the control group, the experimental group presented significant differences in their scores
for gross motor skills, locomotor subtest, object control subtest, strike a stationary ball,
overarm throw, and underhand roll (p < 0.05). In the female sample, there was significant
improvement in their scores for gross motor skills, locomotor subtest, run, gallop, hop,
leap, horizontal jump, slide, object control subtest, strike a stationary ball, stationary
dribble, catch, kick, overarm throw, and underhand roll (p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001) in the
experimental group between the pre-test and post-test. Compared with the control group,
the experimental group presented significant differences in their scores for gross motor
skills, slide, object control subtest, strike a stationary ball, overarm throw, and underhand
roll (p < 0.05). The study confirms that table tennis can effectively improve the gross
motor skills of preschoolers aged 3–6 years, especially their object control skills, and it also
provides empirical evidence for preschoolers’ physical education. Therefore, this study is
of great significance for educational institutions when designing physical activity training
courses for preschoolers and in the study of children’s physical development.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.G. and H.K.; methodology, Y.G. and H.K.; software, Y.C.;
validation, Y.G., Z.R. and H.L.; formal analysis, J.M.; investigation, J.M. and Y.C.; data curation, H.K.
and J.M.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.G.; writing—review and editing, Z.R.; visualization,
Y.C. and Z.R.; supervision, Y.G. and H.K.; project administration, H.K.; funding acquisition, Y.G. and
Y.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Youth Fund Project for the Humanities and Social
Sciences, a funding project of the Ministry of Education of China, under grant no. 20yjc890007:
“Research and development of evaluation index for fundamental movement skills of preschool
children (3–6 years old).”
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Human Ethics Research Committee of the Shenyang
Normal University (protocol code SYNU19-09 and date of approval 9 September 2019).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2627 12 of 13

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data provided in this study are available upon request by the corre-
sponding author. The data were not made public because basic information on children was designed
to be tested.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Chongde, L. Developmental Psychology; People’s Education Press: Beijing, China, 1995; pp. 150–156. (In Chinese)
2. Lubans, D.R.; Morgan, P.J.; Cliff, D.P.; Barnett, L.M.; Okely, A.D. Fundamental movement skills in children and adolescents.
Sports Med. 2010, 40, 1019–1035. [CrossRef]
3. Ulrich, D.A. Test of Gross Motor Development (Second Edition) Examiner’s Manual; Pro-ed Publisher: Austin, TX, USA, 2000; pp. 1–59.
4. Barnett, L.M.; Lai, S.K.; Veldman, S.L.C.; Hardy, L.L.; Cliff, D.P.; Morgan, P.J.; Zask, A.; Lubans, D.R.; Shultz, S.P.; Ridgers, N.D.;
et al. Correlates of gross motor competence in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med.
2016, 46, 1663–1688. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Veldman, S.C.; Santos, R.; Jones, R.A.; Sousa-Sá, E.; Okely, A.D. Associations between gross motor skills and cognitive develop-
ment in toddlers. Early Hum. Dev. 2019, 132, 139–144. [CrossRef]
6. Rahlin, M.; Barnett, J.; Becker, E.; Fregosi, C.M. Development through the lens of a perception-action-cognition connection:
Recognizing the need for a paradigm shift in clinical reasoning. Phys. Ther. 2019, 99, 748–760.
7. Kovaniemi, S.; Alakortes, J.; Carter, A.S.; Yliherva, A.; Bloigu, R.; Joskitt, L.O.; Moilanen, I.K.; Ebeling, H.E. How are social-
emotional and behavioral competences and problems at age 1 year associated with infant motor development? A general
population study. Inf. Behav. Dev. 2018, 51, 1–14. [CrossRef]
8. Hongbo, Y. Talent, Education, Critical Period; M. China Population Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2014; pp. 37–63. (In Chinese)
9. Clark, J.E. From the beginning: A developmental perspective on movement and mobility. Quest 2005, 57, 37–45. [CrossRef]
10. Ruiz-Esteban, C.; Andrés, J.T.; Méndez, I.; Morales, A. Analysis of motor intervention program on the development of gross
motor skills in preschoolers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4891. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Cools, W.; De Martelaer, K.; Samaey, C.; Andries, C. Movement skill assessment of typically developing preschool children: A
review of seven movement skill assessment tools. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2008, 8, 154–168.
12. Robinson, L.E.; Goodway, J.D. Instructional climates in preschool children who are at-risk. Part I: Object-control skill development.
Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2009, 80, 533–542. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Logan, S.W.; Robinson, L.E.; Wilson, A.E.; Lucas, W.A. Getting the fundamentals of movement: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness
of motor skill interventions in children. Child Care Health Dev. 2012, 38, 305–315. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Goodway, J.D.; Branta, C.F. Influence of a motor skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development of disadvantaged
preschool children. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2003, 74, 36–46. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Williams, H.G.; Pfeiffer, K.A.; O’Neill, J.R.; Dowda, M.; McIver, K.L.; Brown, W.H.; Pate, R.R. Motor skill performance and
physical activity in preschool children. Obesity 2008, 16, 1421–1426. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Fei, X.; Yujun, C.; Ran, B.; Kai, W.; Sitong, C.; Yang, L.; Xiaojiao, S. Review on the research system of children basic motor skills
intervention abroad. J. China Sport Sci. 2019, 39, 83–97. (In Chinese)
17. Jun, W.; Yujun, C.; Sitong, C.; Xiaoran, M.; Jun, X. A review, comparison and enlightenment of different theories on basic motor
skill intervention. J. China Sport Sci. 2020, 6, 72–82. (In Chinese)
18. Qicheng, S.; Jinfu, L.; Xiaofeng, Z. Study on the development level of children’s gross motor skills promoted by football from the
perspective of gross motor development. J. Zhejiang Sports Sci. 2020, 42, 57–63. (In Chinese)
19. Ping, Z.; Qiqi, S.; Yuanchun, R. Effects of gymnastics intervention on children’s gross motor development. Chin. J. Sch. Health
2018, 39, 197–199. (In Chinese)
20. Pengyu, S. Experimental analysis of the function of badminton on children’s gross motor development. Bull. Sports Sci. Technol.
Lit. 2019, 27, 171–174. (In Chinese)
21. Rocha, H.A.; Marinho, D.A.; Jidovtseff, B.; Silva, A.J.; Costa, A.M. Influence of regular soccer or swimming practice on gross
motor development in childhood. Motricidade 2017, 12, 33–43. [CrossRef]
22. Wei, J. Brief analysis of the education value of table tennis. J. Guiyang Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2019, 14, 121–124. (In Chinese)
23. Wei, L. Study on the influence of table tennis on children’s harmonious development of body and mind. Mudanjiang Norm. Coll.
2013, 1–10. (In Chinese)
24. Wu, S.K.; Wang, C.-L.; Chen, F.-C.; Huang, M.-H.; Li, Y.-C. Table tennis training on the improvement of motor abilities of children.
Health Prom. Sci. 2009, 4, 37–50. (In Chinese)
25. Foweather, L.; Knowles, Z.; Ridgers, N.D.; O’Dwyer, M.V.; Foulkes, J.D.; Stratton, G. Fundamental movement skills in relation to
weekday and weekend physical activity in preschoolers. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2015, 18, 691–696. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Hardy, L.L.; King, L.; Farrell, L.; Macniven, R.; Howlett, S. Fundamental movement skills among Australian preschool children. J.
Sci. Med. Sport 2010, 13, 503–508. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Valentini, C.N. Validity and reliability of the TGMD-2 for Brazilian children. J. Mot. Behav. 2012, 44, 275–280. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2627 13 of 13

28. Bardid, F.; Huyben, F.; Lenoir, M.; Seghers, J.; De Martelaer, K.; Goodway, J.D.; Deconinck, F.J.A. Assessing fundamental motor
skills in Belgian children aged 3-8 years highlights differences to US reference sample. Acta Paediatr. 2016, 105, e281–e290.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Jing, L.; Hongxia, M. Study on reliability and validity of Children Motor Development Test (TGMD-2). J. Phys. Ed. 2007, 3, 37–40.
(In Chinese)
30. Ke, N.; Xiaojun, S.; Qing, M. Confirmatory factor analysis of Gross Motor Development Scale (TGMD-2) in preschool children. J.
Shaanxi Presch. Norm. Univ. 2016, 32, 65–68. (In Chinese)
31. Jia, X. Selection of initiation training and educational path for children table tennis players. J. Nanjing Inst. Phys. Ed. (Nat. Sci.)
2012, 11, 75–77. (In Chinese)
32. Jikang, W. Practice and exploration of gamification design of sensory integrated table tennis training for children aged 3–6. Educ.
Teach. Forum 2019, 21, 140–141. (In Chinese)
33. Rong, W. Application of multi-ball training method in table tennis training. Sports Cult. Guide 2011, 3, 77–78. (In Chinese)
34. Yujing, W.; Ping, L.V. Training method of combination technique of table tennis of children. J. Shanghai Inst. Phys. Ed. 1996, 20,
60–63. (In Chinese)
35. Piren, S. Table Tennis Course; Higher Education Press: Beijing, China, 2004; pp. 39–91. (In Chinese)
36. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Guidelines for Kindergarten Education (Trial) EB/OL(20010702).
Available online: http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/moe_364/moe_302/moe_309/tnull_1506.html (accessed on 2 July 2001).
37. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. A Guide to Learning and Development for Children Ages 3–6; M. Capital
Normal University: Beijing, China, 2002; pp. 1–17. (In Chinese)
38. Jinrong, S.; Xiangyu, D. Application of narrative games in the enlightenment teaching of tennis for children. J. Hubei Sports Sci.
2017, 36, 465–467. (In Chinese)
39. Shi, Z. Teaching Design of Children’s Sports Games; Higher Education Press: Beijing, China, 2013; pp. 41–105. (In Chinese)
40. Šalaj, S.; Krmpotić, M.; Stamenković, I. Are specific programs a threat to overall motor development of preschoolers? Kinesiol.
Slov. 2016, 22, 47–55.
41. Robinson, L.E.; Palmer, K.K.; Bub, K.L. Effect of the Children’s Health Activity Motor Program on Motor Skills and Self-Regulation
in Head Start Preschoolers: An Efficacy Trial. J. Front. Public Health 2016, 4, 173. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Mostafavi, R.; Ziaee, V.; Akbari, H.; Haji-Hosseini, S. The effects of SPARK physical education program on fundamental motor
skills in 4–6 year-old children. Iran. J. Pediat. 2013, 23, 216–219.
43. Shengkou, W.; Guiping, J.; Shugang, L.; Weitong, L.; Lin, L. An empirical study on the rhythmic physical activity promoting the
development of children’s gross motor under the perspective of motor development. J. Beijing Univ. Phys. Ed. 2015, 38, 98–105.
(In Chinese)
44. Jianlong, H.; Yan, L.; Lin, W.; Huanbi, Z. Comparative study of modern physical education on the development of children’s
basic motor skills. J. Yichun Univ. 2014, 36, 121–124. (In Chinese)
45. Brian, A.; Goodway, J.D.; Logan, J.A.; Sutherland, S. SKIPing with Head Start Teachers: Influence of T-SKIP on Object-Control
Skills. J. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2017, 88, 479–491. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Honglu, L. An experimental study on the influence of ball game activities on the development of controlled motor skills in
4-5-year-old children. Cap. Inst. Phys. Educ. 2016, 20–32. (In Chinese)
47. Yuanyuan, L.; Longxiang, Z.; Guoxiang, W. Study on the design of children’s functional motor training scheme based on the
development of gross motor skills. J. Chengdu Sport Univ. 2018, 44, 122–126. (In Chinese)
48. Gallahue, D.L.; Ozmun, J.C.; Goodway, J. Understanding Motor Development: Infants, Children, Adolescents, Adults; McGraw-Hill:
New York, NY, USA, 2012.
49. Venetsanou, F.; Kambas, A. Environmental factors affecting preschoolers’ motor development. Early Child. Educ. J. 2010, 37,
319–327. [CrossRef]