Next Article in Journal
A Study of Maternal Patients Diagnosed with Inborn Errors of Metabolism Due to Positive Newborn Mass Screening in Their Newborns
Previous Article in Journal
Building Connections with Families: Implementation of a Video-Messaging Service in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Children
Volume 10
Issue 8
10.3390/children10081339
children-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influences of Psychomotor Behaviors on Learning Swimming Styles in 6–9-Year-Old Children

by
Renato-Gabriel Petrea
,
Cristina-Elena Moraru
,
Ileana-Monica Popovici
,
Ilie-Cătălin Știrbu
,
Liliana-Elisabeta Radu
,
Marin Chirazi
,
Cristian-Mihail Rus
,
Alexandru Oprean
and
Oana Rusu
*
Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iași, 507184 Iași, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2023, 10(8), 1339; https://doi.org/10.3390/children10081339
Submission received: 10 July 2023 / Revised: 31 July 2023 / Accepted: 1 August 2023 / Published: 3 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Pediatric Mental Health)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of this study was to identify the existence of some relationships between certain psychomotor behaviors, which we consider specific to swimming, and learning to execute the technique of some swimming styles (front crawl and backstroke). The study was carried out for 10 months and included 76 children (40 boys and 36 girls) aged between 6 and 9 years who practice recreational swimming in a city in Romania. Several tools were used: the Tapping test for manual dexterity, the Goodenough test for body schema, the Flamingo test for static balance, and the horizontal buoyancy test for body balance on the water. The results indicated better ratings on all psychomotor behaviors analyzed according to gender (in favor of girls compared to boys). The levels of all analyzed psychomotor behaviors have a direct relationship to the subjects’ age. Also, we identified moderate positive correlations for manual dexterity (rs = 0.63 in the front crawl style; rs = 0.57 in the backstroke style) and strong correlations for body schema, static balance and buoyancy, coordination with the learning of the two swimming styles (r or rs between 0.77 and 0.85). In conclusion, psychomotor behaviors can be predictors for learning swimming styles.

1. Introduction

Psychomotricity can be defined, in general, as any motor action that is under the influence of mental processes, with its two sides, motor and mental, representing a unitary whole. It is dependent on the sensory, perceptive and cognitive functions, on the reception of information (analyzers) and on the appropriate execution of the response act, which determines a personal, individualized behavior [1,2,3,4,5]. Other authors [6,7] established that psychomotricity responds to human needs according to the processes of education, re-education or therapy and can be seen as a whole system based on movement (the motor act) and mental functions, conditioned both by the interaction between individuals (children–children or children–adults) and by the connection between the growth process and the education system, with effects on proper social integration [8].
Studies on motor behavior are really important because the motor part is dominant in all the activities that an individual performs. Psychomotricity can be influenced in the first years of life, up to 11–12 years [9], and is a research topic even after this age for people with behavioral or mental disorders. In this case, depending on the severity of the neuromotor disorder, psychomotricity can be a concern for their whole life [10].
The process of learning swimming styles is achieved through psychomotor development. A wide variety of motor skills are learned through everyday tasks (walking, running, throwing, catching, etc.), while swimming involves covering distances in water, in swimming pools or in open water through one of four specific styles: front crawl, backstroke, breaststroke or butterfly. The acquisition of new motor skills performed on the field or in the water causes the reorganization of the primary motor cortex, which is positively associated with the formation of motor memory.
Identifying variables that predict swimming performance is one of the main goals of the swimming “science” community [11,12]. There are studies that show that it is possible to improve performance by manipulating anthropometric, biomechanical, hydrodynamic and energetic variables [13,14,15,16,17,18]. Some swimming programs for identifying and monitoring talent, from children to elite adult swimmers, regularly include such tests [19,20]. Studies on the identification of variables that contribute to the learning of swimming styles have not been identified in the literature.

Conduits of Psychomotricity and Their Manifestation in Swimming

The various definitions of psychomotricity [6,20,21,22,23,24] refer to a taxonomy of its components, but also a theoretical approach from different perspectives of its manifestation (education, re-education or therapy).
The components of psychomotricity influence the optimal performance of the individual who practices sports both during training and in official competitions. In the process of learning and practicing swimming, we consider the following psychomotor behaviors to be representative in this study: body scheme, static balance and balance on the water (buoyancy), general coordination, and manual dexterity.
Body schema is understood as an image or mental representation of one’s own body and its differentiation from space and surrounding objects in different static or dynamic situations [25,26]. It is built little by little thanks to sensorial and kinesthetic acquisitions, which are progressively integrated into the child’s cognitive life. De Meur and Staes [27] identify stages in the emergence and development of the body schema in the chronological evolution of the individual’s age. Intentional motor actions depend on the representation of the body at the level of the central nervous system (body schema), and body schema disturbances have been presented in various studies as the main subject for motor impairments [28] and for illusions that the affected body part belongs to another person [29].
In the learning process of swimming, the body schema is considered an important goal of psychomotor development that will be of great use in this instructive-educational process. The optimal age to start learning swimming styles is five years old; at this age, the child has already discovered their own body, knows their body parts and strengthened their body-spatial orientation.
Balance is often used in association with terms like stability and postural control. Despite the widespread use of the term, there is no universally accepted definition of human balance [30,31,32,33,34,35].
Postural control is a prerequisite for maintaining multiple postures in various activities [36,37]. However, balance control has been identified as being associated with three broad categories of human activity [31,38]: (a) maintaining a specific posture (e.g., standing with feet apart and arms outstretched to the side; standing on one leg with the other flexed at the knee joint; a starting position from a block start in swimming events; etc.); (b) voluntary movement performed in daily activities (motor acts that happen between two balance positions); and (c) the reaction to an external disturbance (for example: contact with an opponent during a game of handball or soccer, slipping of a foot during a change in direction, etc.). These taxonomies encompass motor actions that lead to maintaining, achieving or restoring the center of gravity (line of gravity) in the support base [39,40].
Each sport involves specific motor skills that require specific postures and movements to be completed [41,42,43]. Balance is an important factor in many athletic skills, but the relationship between results in sports competitions and balance is not yet fully understood [44,45]. A lower level of balance is associated with injuries such as sprains and tears of muscles, tendons and ligaments [41].
Body balance on water (buoyancy) not only determines whether the body “sinks or floats in water”, but also affects the stability/balance of the body in the fluid. Depending on the locations of the center of gravity (CG) and center of buoyancy (CB), the body can be stable, neutral, or unstable in water [46]. Barbosa et al. [47] identified the hydrostatic profile of swimmers as the ability to float, and the hydrodynamic profile of swimmers as the ability to “glide” on water, which can be determined by buoyancy and various drag forces. Some studies suggest that artificially increasing buoyancy can improve swimming performance and that subjects who naturally have a higher amount of body fat may have an innate advantage in swimming performance [48].
In the learning process of swimming, the body balance on the water is important and manifests itself in two ways. On the transverse axis of the trunk, the loss of balance occurs laterally (left–right) (see the position of the shoulder blades in the positions of the front crawl and backstroke). On the longitudinal axis of the trunk, the loss of balance is determined by the immersion (“falling”) of the legs in the water, especially in the breaststroke and butterfly styles due to the extension of the head and trunk to ensure breathing, but also imposed by the regulation (in the case of the breaststroke).
Coordination includes oculo-motor and general dynamic coordination, and consists of the ability to associate movements in order to ensure efficient motor acts [9,49,50,51]. In order for movement to be adapted to a purpose, it must occur harmoniously in time and space, so it must be coordinated [52,53,54]. Eye-motor coordination is the basis on which prehension is built (the act of grasping with the fingers). Hand–eye coordination is developed and refined with positive effects on the control and improvement of gestures [6].
The general dynamic coordination is achieved with the help of motor skills supporting strength, speed, resistance and flexibility. Coordination of movements occurs only through constant repetition and gradually develops as the child grows. Control of coordinated activity is achieved through the feedback mechanism of proprioception and subcortical centers.
In swimming, coordination is a very important component. However, in aquatic locomotion (e.g., front crawl style), 85% of propulsion is due to the actions of the upper limbs [55], making their coordination very important. Coordination between arms is related to swimming speed and changes due to breathing, buoyancy (external forces) and balance of body segments [54,56,57]. The execution technique of the four swimming styles is based on elements of coordination of the upper limbs among themselves, of the lower limbs among themselves and of all the limbs as a whole. To these, the twisting or extension movements of the head are added to allow inspiration to be achieved.
Manual dexterity is a term used to explain a range of different hand and finger skills and performances [58]. These skills include reaction time, hand preference (dominant), wrist flexion speed, finger touch speed, aiming, hand stability and arm stability [59].
In the process of learning to swim, manual dexterity is not as important as it is in other sports (volleyball, handball, basketball, etc.), showing itself in the active phase of the upper limb when the hand grabs, pulls and pushes the water.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Aim and Hypotheses

The purpose of this study is to identify what type of relationship exists between psychomotor behaviors, as independent variables, and learning the execution technique of some swimming styles (front crawl and backstroke), as dependent variables.
Two main working hypotheses were formulated, each with 5 secondary hypotheses.
Hypothesis H1.
There is a positive relationship between psychomotor behaviors and learning front crawl style.
Hypothesis H2.
There is a positive relationship between psychomotor behaviors and learning backstroke style.

2.2. Research Subjects

The study was carried out between October 2021 and July 2022, with a population of 428 children practicing leisure swimming (beginner level) at one of the swimming pools in the city and metropolitan area of Iași, Romania. The research subjects are represented by 76 children (17.75% of the population), aged between 6 and 9.11 years (M = 7.2 years, SD = ±1.1), distributed according to gender (40 boys (52.6%), 36 girls (47.4%)) and age (19 (25%) for each category: 6.0–6.11 years, 7–7.11 years, 8–8.11 years and 9–9.11 years), who participated and completed all the tests included in the study. For each participant, the parents expressed and signed their consent (see Table 1).
The research subjects followed a program of two lessons per week, lasting 60–75 min each, following a program that included different exercises structured by learning stages for the two swimming styles, front crawl and backstroke.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Oviedo Convention of 1997 and the Helsinki Declaration of 1964, with the approval of the Ethics Committee of the Faculty (protocol code 13bis/30 March 2021). Subjects were included with prior written consent obtained from a parent or guardian for each child.

2.3. Measurement and Evaluation of Variables

All the tests used in the process of measuring and evaluating the variables (independent and dependent) were carried out in the same swimming center. Specific tests were used for each individual variable, which required specific materials, prior instruction, individual subject testing, measurement and evaluation (reference to rating standards). Testing was completed without runtime pressure. After the creation of the sample, at the end of the first month of research, the psychomotor tests were applied in the technical meeting space of the swimming center in the following sequence: for manual dexterity—the Tapping test, for the body schema—the Goodenough test, for static balance—the Flamingo test, for buoyancy—the horizontal buoyancy test, and for coordination—10 tests (5 for the lower limbs and 5 for the upper ones) and the Matorin test. The execution technique testing of the two swimming styles was carried out at the end of the research period in the swimming pool (25 m length, working corridor—2.5 m, and water temperature 26–28 °C), and the elements of the execution technique were measured in different phases. The assessment of the styles was carried out by two coaches, other than those involved in the training process, performing an inter-rater fidelity test. The full description of the tests is included in Appendix A.

2.4. Statistical Analyses

The results from this research were stored and processed using IBM SPSS 20 software (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistical analyses allowed for checking the condition of normal data distribution, by calculating the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K-S) and Shapiro–Wilk (S-W) coefficients. To check the correlation between the variables, the Pearson coefficient (r) for variables with parametric normal distribution and the Spearman coefficient (rs) for variables with non-parametric non-normal distribution were calculated. According to [60,61], the interpretation of the obtained values of r/rs was carried out as follows: between 0.01 and 0.09—negligible positive relationship; r/rs between 0.10 and 0.39—weak positive relationship; r/rs between 0.40 and 0.69—moderate positive relationship; r/rs between 0.70 and 0.89—strong positive relationship; and r/rs between 0.90 and 1.00—very strong positive relationship.
When r has a negative value, we use the same interpretation range with the specification that the association is negative. In addition, due to the inconsistency of the correlation coefficient, the coefficient of determination (the square of the correlation coefficient r2) was also calculated to establish the proportion of influence of the independent variable on the dependent one [61].
The confidence interval taken into account was 95%.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistical Analysis

Depending on the gender variable, the results suggest that girls recorded better values for all the independent and dependent variables analyzed (see Table 2).
For the manual dexterity variable, girls scored 1.48 centiles higher than boys on the Tapping test. In the case of body schema, the data obtained from the Goodenough test show that girls obtained values 1.16 better than those obtained by boys. For the static balance variable, the difference in values obtained by girls compared to boys in the Flamingo test is 1.34 in favor of girls, while for body balance on water, it is 1.45 greater, also for girls. For the general coordination variable, girls recorded values 1.09 higher than boys.
In the case of the dependent variables, the values obtained in the tests are in favor of the girls, 1.19 for the front crawl style and 1.50 for the backstroke style.
By age variable, the results suggest that psychomotor skills are related to children’s increasing age (see Table 3). The older the child, the higher the values. Thus, we present the data below, relating them to the age category 9–9.11 years.
In the measurement of the manual dexterity variable, we found the following differences between the age categories: 3.69 compared to those aged 8–8.11 years, 9.74 compared to those aged 7–7.11 years, and 19.74 compared to those aged 6–6.11 years.
For the body schema variable, the recorded differences are 3.16 compared to those aged 8–8.11 years, 5.26 compared to those aged 7–7.11 years, and 9.11 compared to those aged 6–6.11 years.
For the static balance variable, a difference of 1.2 was recorded compared to those aged between 8 and 8.11 years, 3.17 years compared to 7–7.11 years, and 4.53 compared to those between 6 and 6.11 years. In the case of the body balance on water variable, there are differences of 1.78 compared to those aged 8–8.11 years, 3.13 compared to those aged 7–7.11 years, and 4.87 compared to those aged 6–6.11 years.
In the case of the coordination variable, a difference of 1.1 was recorded compared to those between 8 and 8.11 years, 2.58 compared to those between 7 and 7.11 years, and 4.79 compared to those between 6 and 6.11 years.
The differences between the age categories for the technique variable of the front crawl style were as follows: 1.48 compared to those between 8 and 8.11 years old, 2.95 compared to those between 7–7.11 years old, and 4.47 compared to those between 6 and 6.11 years old. For the backstroke style variable, the differences were values of 1.37 compared to those aged 8–8.11 years, 2.42 compared to those aged 7–7.11 years, and 3.53 compared to those aged between 6 and 6.11 years.

3.2. Inferential Statistical Analysis-Hypothesis Testing

Checking the normality of the seven variables analyzed in the study was performed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk statistical tests. The obtained values show that three of them have a normal distribution: body schema, body balance on water and front crawl style technique. The other four have a distribution that does not meet the condition of normality: manual dexterity, static balance, general coordination and backstroke style technique (see Table 4).
Two main hypotheses were formulated in the study, each with five secondary hypotheses.
Hypothesis H1.
There is a positive relationship between psychomotor behaviors and learning front crawl style technique.
Hypotheses derived from hypothesis H1:
Hypothesis H1a.
There is a positive relationship between manual dexterity and learning front crawl style technique.
Hypothesis H1b.
There is a positive relationship between body schema and learning front crawl style technique.
Hypothesis H1c.
There is a positive relationship between static balance and learning front crawl style technique.
Hypothesis H1d.
There is a positive relationship between body balance on the water (buoyancy) and learning front crawl style technique.
Hypothesis H1e.
There is a positive relationship between general coordination and learning front crawl style technique.
The obtained statistical values of the coefficients calculated in the testing of the hypotheses derived from H1 suggest statistically significant positive relationships between all the independent variables and the dependent variable. In the case of manual dexterity, a moderate relationship was identified with the dependent variable (learning the front crawl style technique) (rs = 0.63, r2 = 0.40, p = 0.001). In the case of the other variables, the data show statistically significant positive relationships with a strong intensity: for body schema (r = 0.80, r2 = 0.64, p= 0.001), for static balance (rs = 0.82, r2 = 0.67, p = 0.001), for buoyancy (r = 0.78, r2 = 0.61, p = 0.001), and for general coordination (rs = 0, 81, r2 = 0.65, p = 0.001). Therefore, we can state that the derived hypotheses and the hypothesis H1 were confirmed (see Table 5).
Hypothesis H2.
There is a positive relationship between psychomotor behaviors and learning backstroke style technique.
Hypotheses derived from hypothesis H2:
Hypothesis H2a.
There is a positive relationship between manual dexterity and learning backstroke style technique.
Hypothesis H2b.
There is a positive relationship between body schema and learning backstroke style technique.
Hypothesis H2c.
There is a positive relationship between static balance and learning backstroke style technique.
Hypothesis H2d.
There is a positive relationship between body balance on the water (buoyancy) and learning backstroke style technique.
Hypothesis H2e.
There is a positive relationship between general coordination and learning backstroke style technique.
In the case of testing hypothesis H2, the Spearman statistical coefficient was calculated, taking into account the non-normal distribution of the results of some variables. Thus, a relationship of moderate intensity was identified between the variable manual dexterity and learning the backstroke style technique (rs = 0.57, r2 = 0.32, p = 0.001). For the other derived hypotheses (H2b, H2c, H2d, H2e), the results show the existence of positive, statistically significant, strong relationships between the dependent variable (learning the backstroke technique) and the independent variables: body schema (rs = 0.77, r2 = 0.59, p = 0.001), static balance (rs = 0.81, r2 = 0.65, p < 0.001), buoyancy (rs = 0.85, r2 = 0.72, p < 0.001), and general coordination (rs = 0.78, r2 = 0.61, p < 0.001). Therefore, we can state that the derived hypotheses and hypothesis H2 have been confirmed (see Table 6).

4. Discussion

In this study, we aimed to verify the influences of some psychomotor behaviors, as independent variables (manual dexterity, body schema, static balance, body balance on the water-buoyancy, and general coordination), in the learning process of the technical execution of front crawl and backstroke swimming styles, as dependent variables.
The results of our study for the “Tapping” test suggest that the subjects recorded a higher level of manual dexterity in girls compared to boys and in the older age group (9–9.11 years) compared to the other three age groups analyzed. These data agree with the values obtained in other studies [62,63,64,65]. The better level recorded in girls compared to boys is also confirmed by the study of Junaid and Fellowes [66] who observed that in children between 6 and 8 years, boys develop ball skills earlier than girls and that girls acquire manual dexterity before boys. In another study, Jaime et al. [67] found an association between manual dexterity and age in children between 4 and 15 years.
The values obtained for the assessment of the body schema showed a better level in girls compared to boys. These results agree with previous studies [68,69,70]. Our results show that depending on age, older subjects have better representations of their own body compared to younger ones, with the largest differences being between the 9–9.11 years and 6–6.11 years categories. The study carried out by Șunei et al. [71] measured body schema using the Draw-a-Person Test and found statistically significant differences between girls and boys aged 5 to 8 years. Thus, girls appear to have more knowledge about body dimensions (e.g., tall, short, thin, fat, etc.) or a greater ability to judge their body in terms of size and shape compared to boys [72]. León et al. [72] also highlight the interdependence between age and body schema in children aged between 4 and 15 years. Children’s judgments about the sizes of body segments and the body as a whole—the body schema—improve with age, and the period of 6–9 years is the one in which the image of one’s own body in space and time takes shape. At preschool ages, body image is unstable, and children’s cognitive limitations could explain the lack of a good body schema representation.
The results obtained in the Flamingo test, which measured the static balance variable, indicate a good level and is better in girls compared to boys. Girls have a better static balance than boys by 1.34 s, and the older the child, the better the level of balance. Our findings are consistent with the synthesis of Schedler et al. [73] who concluded that for subjects aged 6–18 years, girls perform better than boys in showing static balance, and boys perform slightly better than girls in showing dynamic balance and pro-active balance. Schedler et al. [73,74] identified that adolescents (14–18 years) have better balance performance (static, dynamic and proactive) than children (6–13 years). Other studies [75,76] claim that teenagers show better postural control than children and contradict some theories that claim that body balance is outlined around the age of ten. The maturity of human balance is not completed in childhood and may last until adolescence or young adulthood [73]. The age period between 6 and 8 years is considered a transitional phase in the development of postural control, when balance performance suddenly increases, which has been attributed to better sensory and motor manifestation, as well as changes in postural control strategies [77,78].
The values obtained in the body balance on water test suggest that girls register a better level compared to boys. McLean and Hinrichs [79] concluded, based on a study identifying the distance (d) between the center of gravity (CG) and the center of buoyancy (CF) in male and female swimmers aged 18–19 years, that girls have a much smaller distance compared to boys and, implicitly, better buoyancy. Depending on the locations of the CG and the CF, the body can be either stable, neutral or unstable [46]. The body is stable when it remains at the surface of the water, it is neutral when it balances somewhere in the water mass, and unstable when it sinks completely. And, in our study, girls have better buoyancy than boys, as shown by maintaining body balance on water for 1.45 s longer. In swimming, anthropometry influences hydrostatics and hydrodynamics, these influence the execution technique, which in turn, influences energy resources, all of which are reflected in swimming performance [11].
Although, in this study, age differences are recorded (those in the older age category compared to the other categories), we have not identified research that shows that this variable would be a predictor for body balance on water buoyancy, and therefore we can compare the results.
As with the other independent variables analyzed, the data indicate differences in the level of general coordination by gender, with 1.09 points in favor of girls. Battaglia et al. [80] concluded that there were significant differences in motor quotient scores between girls and boys. But, other studies suggest significant differences in motor skills between boys and girls, in favor of boys [81,82]. Boys perform better than girls, which could be related to both daily physical activities and playing sports [82,83].
Our data indicate a level of general coordination directly related to age. The older the children (in the age category 9–9.11 years), the better the level of coordination. The results are similar to those of other studies [82], which suggest that the level of coordination increases with age for both genders. Additionally, higher levels of coordination during childhood and adolescence influence children’s ability to successfully participate in movement situations and engage in physical activity throughout life [84,85].
Similar to the results obtained in the tests of the independent variables, the scores achieved in learning the two swimming styles, as dependent variables, are in favor of girls and children of the older age group.
Testing the two main hypotheses of the study, which examine the existence of a positive relationship between the psychomotor components and the learning of the two swimming styles, the results showed values of r or rs between 0.57 and 0.85. If a moderate positive correlation was recorded on the manual dexterity variable (rs = 0.63 for front crawl style; rs = 0.57 for backstroke style), for body schema, general coordination, static balance and body balance on water, the values are between 0.77 and 0.85 for both styles. This suggests a moderate–strong relationship between the variables.
There are studies in the literature that show that it is possible to improve sports performance by manipulating anthropometric, biomechanical and/or energetic variables [13]. Also, anthropometric, hydrostatic and hydrodynamic variables are described as being related to swimming performance [14,15,16,17]. Anthropometric, hydrodynamic and biomechanical testing procedures are often reported in the literature in attempts to predict swimming performance, as in other sport disciplines [18]. The literature is no longer as “rich” regarding psychomotor behaviors and their association with swimming (learning or improvement).
The novelty of this research comes from the fact that it proposes the association of these variables with swimming and also approaches the dependent variable as the learning process of swimming styles and not the sports performance in swimming. Information about this process is missing in the specialized literature, although it is the basis on which future sports performance is built.
In carrying out this study, a series of aspects were identified that can be considered as limitations of the research. The limitation of the research sample was due to either the choice of the parents not to express their consent for the engagement of the minors in the study, or by dropping out of the swimming lessons along the way. Also, some results could have been negatively influenced by certain environmental barriers (noises, etc.) by decreasing the subjects’ ability to concentrate.
Future research directions can be oriented towards the identification of causal relationships, through quantitative analyses, or linear or multiple linear regression, between the invoked variables. Also, other psychomotor components (spatio-temporal organization and laterality) could be taken into account, which would provide a much more detailed picture regarding their influences in the process of learning swimming styles. The research could be extended to the other two swimming styles, but also for other invoked variables (other age categories and other swimming categories—open water swimming and synchronized swimming).

5. Conclusions

The study highlighted gender differences, in favor of the girls, as well as age differences, in favor of the older children, both for all the psychomotor components and for learning the technical execution of the two swimming styles.
All the psychomotor behaviors invoked in the study (manual dexterity, body schema, static balance, body balance on the water-buoyancy and general coordination) had positive relationships with learning the technical execution of swimming styles, front crawl and backstroke. Manual dexterity had positive associations of moderate intensity (both front crawl and backstroke styles), and the other variables had positive associations of strong intensity with both styles. Therefore, they are very important in the process of learning swimming styles (front crawl and backstroke). The main hypotheses of the study were confirmed.
The study gave us the opportunity to analyze the balance of the body on water buoyancy from a psychomotor perspective, not just from a hydrostatic and dynamic perspective, when learning swimming procedures.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: R.-G.P., C.-E.M., O.R., I.-M.P., I.-C.Ș. and M.C.; methodology, R.-G.P., C.-E.M., O.R., L.-E.R. and C.-M.R.; software, R.-G.P., I.-M.P., L.-E.R. and O.R.; validation, R.-G.P., C.-E.M., A.O., L.-E.R., I.-M.P. and C.-M.R.; formal analysis, R.-G.P., A.O., M.C. and I.-C.Ș.; investigation, R.-G.P., M.C., A.O., I.-C.Ș. and C.-M.R.; writing—original draft preparation, R.-G.P., C.-E.M., O.R., I.-M.P., M.C., I.-C.Ș., A.O., C.-M.R. and L.-E.R.; writing—review and editing, R.-G.P., C.-E.M., O.R., I.-M.P., I.-C.Ș., M.C., L.-E.R., C.-M.R. and A.O. All authors have equal contributions. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was co-funded by the European Social Fund, through the Operational Programme Human Capital 2014–2020, project no POCU/993/6/13/153322, project title “Educational and training support for Ph.D. students and young researchers in preparation for insertion in the labor market”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iasi (protocol code 13bis form 30 March 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study through their legal representatives.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Appendix A.1. Tests for Measuring and Evaluating Independent Variables

To measure manual dexterity, we used the “Tapping” test, created to measure manual dexterity and speed [62,63,64,65], for both hands. The subjects received a stopwatch, a pencil and two sheets of 20/20 cm size, and on each sheet a square with sides of 10 cm was printed, which was divided into 100 squares with sides of l cm. The subject had to place, with the pencil, one point in each of the 100 squares, first with the dominant hand, then with the other. The timer was started when the child made the first point and stopped after the child made the last point. The total score summarized the time, in seconds converted to centiles, that the child obtained on the two tests (right-handed and left-handed). It was categorized as poor dexterity (0–30 centiles), average dexterity (31–70 centiles) and good dexterity (71–100 centiles).
The Goodenough test was used to measure the body schema [68,70]. The test can be applied to children between 3 and 13 years old with a double role: detecting mental deficiencies and identifying the IQ level that a child can have at different ages [69]. The subject was asked to draw a man on the sheet of paper, being encouraged but not helped or influenced. The presence/absence of 27 elements were scored, with the maximum score being 30 points (26 from the body elements and 4 from the presented clothing items).
For normally developed children, the scores (±1 point) regarding the cortical representation of the body schema are at 3 years = 6 points; at 4 years = 8 points; at 5 years = 10 points; at 6 years = 14 points; at 7 years = 18 points; at 8 years = 20 points; at 9 years = 22 points; at 10 years = 24 points; at 11 years = 26 points; and at 12–13 years = 28 points [68,70].
The Flamingo test was used to measure static balance [86,87,88,89]. The test requires participants to maintain a standing position on one leg with hands on hips and the other lower limb should be flexed at the knee with the sole pressed against the medial aspect of the knee of the base leg. The test can be taken both with the eyes closed and with the eyes open. It was performed on both the right and left legs as described above, with the eyes closed. The test was performed twice for each leg and the best time (expressed in seconds) was taken into account. The arithmetic mean (of the best time from the right leg with the best time from the left leg) was used in the statistical analysis. Through this test, the laterality of the lower limbs was also monitored.
Body balance on water testing (buoyancy) was performed using the horizontal buoyancy test [90,91,92,93,94] by adapting the vertical buoyancy test [17]. The test was applied to the children after they had participated in a minimum of five swimming sessions and were adapted to the water. Subjects were asked to lie horizontally in the water with the lower and upper limbs extended in body extension and slightly apart, hands no more than a hand-width apart, and feet no more than basin-width apart. At the level of the internal malleolus (between the legs), a plastic bar graduated in centimeters was placed and positioned vertically (perpendicular to the bottom of the pelvis). The zero point was considered to be at the water level marked by a white band, and ten centimeters below (in the water), another white band was mounted. Also, the children’s ankles were marked. Testing was performed both from the lying face-down position (on the chest) and from the dorsal lying position (on the back). The children were placed on the water by a trainer, and an assistant positioned the bar at the level of the inner ankles and timed. The time (in seconds) maintained in the horizontal position was measured. The timer was stopped when the feet (inner malleolus) reached the level of the second white band. The test was performed twice both for the lying face-down position (on the chest) and for the dorsal lying position (on the back). An assistant recorded the best time (for the facial position and for the dorsal position). In the statistical analysis, the arithmetic mean of the times (in seconds) obtained at the two positions was used.
The following tests were used for coordination:
⮚
Coordinating the movements of the upper limbs from the initial position standing slightly apart:
(1)
Rotating the arms from the shoulder joint, simultaneously forward;
(2)
Rotating the arms from the shoulder joint, simultaneously backwards;
(3)
Rotation of the arms from the shoulder joint, simultaneously, the right forward and the left backward;
(4)
Rotation of the arms from the shoulder joint, simultaneously, the left forward and the right backward;
(5)
Arm shears in the transverse plane with the hands from thigh level above the head and vice versa, the lower limbs are perfectly stretched.
For tests 1–5, the minimum execution time in the context of the age-appropriate assessment was followed (at 6 years = 10 s; at 7 years = 15 s; at 8 years = 20 s; and at 9 years = 25 s).
⮚
Coordination of the lower limbs—jumping on the coordination scale:
(6)
Successive jumps on both legs;
(7)
Successive jumps with the right leg, followed by jumps with the left leg;
(8)
Successive alternating jumps (right/left);
(9)
Successive jumps on both legs (from near to far; inside and outside the steps of the coordination ladder);
(10)
Lateral jumps, successive, from one foot to another.
Specification for the number of repetitions according to age: at 6 years = 8; at 7 years = 10; at 8 years = 12; and at 9 years = 14 jumps.
⮚
General coordination and spatial orientation:
(11)
The Matorin test [95], which consisted of a jump on both feet with an attempt to turn 3600 around the longitudinal axis of the body.
The measurement of coordination was carried out by two trainers, for tests 1–10, the value “1” was assigned for successful execution and the value “0” for unsuccessful execution. For the Matorin test, values between 1 and 8 were assigned as follows: jumping between 0 and 450 = one point; jump between 46 and 900 = two points; jump between 91 and 1350 = three points; jump between 136 and 1800 = four points; jump between 181 and 2250 = five points; jump between 226 and 2700 = six points; jump between 271 and 3150 = seven points; and jump between 316 and 3600 = eight points. Each subject performed the 11 coordination tests twice and the best performance was taken into account. The score obtained was calculated by summing all the points obtained in all 11 coordination tests. This can be between 0 and 18.

Appendix A.2. Tests for Measuring the Dependent Variables

The test for measuring and evaluating the technical execution of the front crawl style tracked the execution of the following technical details:
-
Assessment of the movement of the upper limbs in the active phase—action of the hand through the water:
(1)
The hand enters the water with the thumb;
(2)
The hand enters the water in the extension of the head between the shoulder and the sagittal plane;
(3)
The hand grabs the water (flexion of the hand on the forearm);
(4)
Drawing water, the upper limb flexed at the elbow;
(5)
Pushing the water, the palm reaches the thigh;
(6)
The hand leaves the water with the little finger.
-
Assessment of the movement of the upper limbs in the preparatory phase—the action of the hand through the air:
(7)
Rotation of the arm from the shoulder joint, the forearm flexed on the arm, in the aerial way the elbow is higher than the hand.
-
Assessment of the movement of the lower limbs in the descending and ascending phase:
(8)
The whipping movement of the lower limbs;
(9)
Plantar flexion of the foot, the heel leaves the water;
(10)
The range of motion between the two lower limbs is correct (35–45 cm).
-
Assessment of coordination between upper and lower limbs:
(11)
When executing a cycle of movements of the upper limbs, the presence of two cycles of movements of the lower limbs.
-
Assessment of lateral breathing (breathing with two arms) and its coordination with the execution technique:
(12)
The lateral twisting of the head (cervical area) is doubled by the twisting of the trunk only from the thoracic area (the hips are not involved in this movement), and the upper limb that is in the water must be stretched in the extension of the body;
(13)
The head does not lose contact with the water during lateral breathing (without head extension);
(14)
The distance between the chin and the chest is the same (both in the lying face-down position and during the lateral twisting movement);
(15)
Inhalation is through the mouth, deep and short, in the active phase (through the water) of an upper limb (right or left—at your choice), followed by a short apnea when the hand leaves the water;
(16)
Exhalation through the mouth and nose, slow and long, in the active phase (through water) of the other upper limb (opposite to the one we referred to for inspiration);
(17)
The direction of movement on the water is linear, without left–right oscillations.
The technical details presented in points 1–9 have been evaluated for both the right and left limbs. The correct execution of each technical aspect in the global execution of the crawl procedure was scored with “1”, and the lack or wrong execution was scored with “0”. Each subject performed the front crawl over a distance of 50 m (two pool lengths), and the measurement and evaluation test of the crawl procedure were performed twice, with the best result being used for statistical analysis. The final score was obtained by adding up all the points obtained in all technical aspects, which could be between 0 and 26.
The test for measuring and evaluating the technical execution of the backstroke style tracked the execution of the following technical details:
-
Assessment of the movement of the upper limbs in the active phase—the action of the hand through the water:
(1)
The hand enters the water with the little finger;
(2)
The hand enters the water in the extension of the head next to the shoulder;
(3)
The hand grabs the water (flexion of the hand on the forearm);
(4)
Pulling the water, the upper limb flexed at the elbow (side rowing);
(5)
Pushing the water, the palm reaches the thigh;
(6)
The hand leaves the water with the thumb.
-
Assessment of the movement of the upper limbs in the preparatory phase—the action of the hand through the air:
(7)
Rotation of the upper limb from the shoulder joint, perfectly stretched from the elbow and hand joints; this movement is doubled by the internal rotation (in the longitudinal axis) of the upper limb near the shoulder so that the hand enters the water with the little finger.
-
Assessment of the movement of the lower limbs in the descending and ascending phase:
(8)
Whipping movement of lower limbs;
(9)
Plantar flexion of the foot, the phalanges of the toes leave the water;
(10)
The amplitude of the movement between the two lower limbs is correct (35–45 cm);
(11)
The head (cervical area) does not lose contact with the water;
(12)
The head is in a slight flexion with respect to the trunk, the distance between the chin and the chest is the same (over the entire travel distance).
-
Assessment of coordination between upper and lower limbs:
(13)
When performing a cycle of upper limb movements, the presence of two lower limb movement cycles.
-
Assessment of breathing and its coordination with the execution technique:
(14)
Inhalation is through the mouth, deep and short, in the first third of the airway of an upper limb (right or left-at your choice), followed by a short apnea until the limb enters the water;
(15)
Exhalation through the mouth and nose, slow and long, in the active phase (through water) of the same upper limb (to which we referred for inspiration);
(16)
The direction of movement on the water is linear, without left–right oscillations.
The technical details presented in points 1–9 have been evaluated for both the right and left limbs. The correct execution of each technical aspect in the global execution of the back procedure was scored with “1”, and the lack or wrong execution was scored with “0”. Each subject performed the backstroke over a distance of 50 m (two pool lengths), and the measurement and evaluation test of the backstroke were performed twice, with the best result being used for statistical analysis. The final score was obtained by adding up all the points obtained for all technical aspects, which could be between 0 and 25.

References

  1. Gordon, W.A. Structura şi Dezvoltarea Personalităţii; Didactică şi Pedagogică: Bucharest, Romania, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  2. Oliveira, G. Psicomotricidade: Educação e Reeducação num enfoque Psicopedagógico, 5th ed.; Vozes: Sao Paolo, Brazil, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  3. Borges, M.F.; Rubio, J.A.S. A Educacao Psicomotora como instrumento no Processo de Aprendizagem. Rev. Eletronica Saberes Educ. 2013, 4, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  4. Rabelo, K.I.L.; Aquino, G.B. Relacao entre psicomotricidade e desenvolvimento infantil: Um relato de experiencia. Rev. Cient. Faminas 2014, 10, 109–123. [Google Scholar]
  5. Viscione, I.; D’elia, F.; Vastola, R.; Sibilio, M. Psychomotor assisment in Teaching and Educational research. Athens J. Educ. 2017, 4, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wallon, H. Evoluţia Psihologică a Copilului; Pro Humanitate: Bucharest, Romania, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  7. Sas, L.G.; Farina, E.F.; Ferreiro, M.C.; Fernandez, J.E.R.; Couto, J.M.P. Improvement of self-esteem and emotional intelligence through psychomotricity and social skills workshops. Sportis Sci. J. 2017, 3, 187–205. [Google Scholar]
  8. Shingjergji, A. Psycho-motor education of the pre-school children—A possibility for qualitative training. Int. Lett. Soc. Humanist. Sci. 2014, 6, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Albu, A.; Albu, C. Psihomotricitate; Spiru Haret: Iași, Romania, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  10. Popescu, O.; Popescu, V. Aspects on the motor and psychomotor learning at children with intellectual disabilities. Discobolul 2015, 11, 39–42. [Google Scholar]
  11. Barbosa, T.M.; Bragada, J.A.; Reis, V.M.; Marinho, D.A.; Carvalho, C.; Silva, A.J. Energetics and biomechanics as determining factors of swimming performance: Updating the state of the art. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2010, 13, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Saavedra, J.M.; Escalante, Y.; Rodríguez, F.A. A multivariate analysis of performance in young swimmers. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 2010, 22, 135–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Barbosa, T.M.; Costa, M.; Marinho, D.A.; Coelho, J.; Moreira, M.; Silva, A.J. Modeling the links between young swimmers’ performance: Energetic and biomechanic profiles. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 2010, 22, 379–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Geladas, N.D.; Nassis, G.P.; Pavlicevic, S. Somatic and physical traits affecting sprint swimming performance in young swimmers. Int. J. Sports Med. 2005, 26, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Lätt, E.; Jürimäe, J.; Haljaste, K.; Cicchella, A.; Purge, P.; Jürimäe, T. Longitudinal development of physical and performance parameters during biological maturation of young male swimmers. Percept. Mot. Skills 2009, 108, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lätt, E.; Jürimäe, J.; Haljaste, K.; Cicchella, A.; Purge, P.; Jürimäe, T. Physical development and swimming performance during biological maturation in young female swimmers. Coll. Antropol. 2009, 33, 117–122. [Google Scholar]
  17. Silva, A.J.; Costa, A.M.; Oliveira, P.M.; Reis, V.M.; Saavedra, J.; Perl, J.; Rouboa, A.; Marinho, D.A. The use of neural network technology to model swimming performance. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2007, 6, 117–125. [Google Scholar]
  18. Rogulj, N.; Papić, V.; Cavala, M. Evaluation models of some morphological characteristics for talent scouting in sport. Coll. Antropol. 2009, 33, 105–110. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hohmann, A.; Seidel, I. Talent prognosis in young swimmers. Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming XI; Kjendlie, P.L., Stallman, R.K., Cabri, J., Eds.; Norwegian School of Sport Sciences: Oslo, Norway, 2010; pp. 262–264. [Google Scholar]
  20. Garcia, A.C. The play and the psychomotricity, Monograph. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Cândido Mendes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lafon, R. Vocabulaire de Psychopedagogie et de Psychiatrie Infantile; PUF: Paris, France, 1969. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mendoza, V. Dessarollo Infantil. La Teoria de Wallon; Asociacion Oaxaquena de Psichologia A.C.: Oaxaca, Mexico, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  23. Cro, M.; Andreucci, L.; Pereira, A.; Pinho, A.; Chova, L.; Belenguer, D.; Martinez, A. Psychomotricty, health and well-being in childhood education. In Proceedings of the Edulearn11: 3rd International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Barcelona, Spain, 4–6 July 2011; pp. 4716–4722. [Google Scholar]
  24. Merida-Serrano, R.; Olivares-Garcia, M.D.; Gonzalez-Alfaya, M.E. Discovering the world through the body in the childhood. The importance of materials in the child psychomotricity. Retos 2018, 34, 329–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. de Vignemont, F. Body schema and body imagePros and cons. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48, 669–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Teixeira, H.J.; Abelairas-Gomez, C.; Arufe-Giráldez, V.; Pazos-Couto, J.M.; Barcala-Furelos, R. Influence of a physical education plan on psychomotor development profiles of preschool children. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 2015, 10, 126–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. De Meur, A.; Staes, L. Psyhomotricité. Ėducation et Rééducation, Niveaux Maternel et Primaire; Ed. De Boeck: Brussels, Belgium, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  28. Matsumiya, K. Multiple representations of the body schema for the same body part. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119, e2112318119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Haggard, P.; Wolpert, D. Disorders of body scheme. In Higher-Order Motor Disorders; Freund, H.J., Jeannerod, M., Hallett, M., Leiguarda, R., Eds.; Oxford Unviersity Press: Oxford, UK, 2004; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  30. Bell, F. Principles of Mechanics and Biomechanics; Stanley Thornes: Cheltenham, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  31. Berg, K.; Wood-Dauphinee, S.; Williams, J.; Gayton, D. Measuring balance in the elderly: Preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother. Can. 1989, 41, 304–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Winter, D.A. Human balance and posture control during standing and walking. Gait Posture 1995, 3, 193–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Braune, W.; Fischer, O. On the Centre of Gravity of the Human Body; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; Volume 1, pp. 59–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hall, S.J. Basic Biomechanics, 8th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  35. Pollock, A.S.; Durward, B.R.; Rowe, P.J.; Paul, J.P. What is balance? Clin. Rehab. 2000, 14, 402–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Zatsiorsky, V.M.; Duarte, M. Instant equilibrium point and its migration in standing tasks: Rambling and trembling components of the stabilogram. Motor Control 1999, 3, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Daneshjoo, A.; Mokhtar, A.H.; Rahnama, N.; Yusof, A. The Effects of Comprehensive Warm-Up Programs on Proprioception, Static and Dynamic Balance on Male Soccer Players. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e51568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. King, M.B.; Judge, J.O.; Wolfson, L. Functional base of support decreases with age. J. Gerontol. 1994, 49, 258–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. McGuine, T.A.; Greene, J.J.; Best, T.; Leverson, G. Balance as a predictor of ankle injuries in high school basketball players. Clin. J. Sport. Med. 2000, 10, 239–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Hrysomallis, C. Relationship between balance ability, training and sports injury risk. Sports Med. 2007, 37, 547–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hrysomallis, C.; McLaughlin, P.; Goodman, C. Relationship between static and dynamic balance tests among elite Australian Footballers. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2006, 9, 288–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Maurer, C.; Mergner, T.; Peterka, R.J. Multisensory control of human upright stance. Exp. Brain Res. 2006, 171, 231–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Paillard, T. Plasticity of the postural function to sport and/or motor experience. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2017, 72, 129–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Adlerton, A.K.; Moritz, U.; Moe-Nilssen, R. Forceplate and accelerometer measures for evaluating the effect of muscle fatigue on postural control during one-legged stance. Physiother. Res. Int. 2003, 8, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hrysomallis, C. Balance ability and athletic performance. Sports Med. 2011, 41, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Yanai, T.; Wilson, B.D. How does buoyancy influence front-crawl performance? Exploring the assumptions. Sports Technol. 2008, 1, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Barbosa, T.M.; Costa, M.J.; Morais, J.E.; Moreira, M.M.; Silva, A.J.; Marinho, D.A. How Informative are the Vertical Buoyancy and the Prone Gliding Tests to Assess Young Swimmers’ Hydrostatic and Hydrodynamic Profiles? J. Hum. Kinet. 2012, 32, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. McLean, S.P.; Hinrichs, R.N. Buoyancy, Gender, and Swimming Performance. J. Appl. Biomech. 2000, 16, 248–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Corbin, C.B.; Pangrazi, R.P.; Franks, B.D. Definitions: Health, fitness, and physical activity. Pres. Counc. Phys. Fit. Sports Res. Dig. 2000, 3, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bruton, M.; O’Dwyer, N. Synergies in coordination: A comprehensive overview of neural, computational, and behavioral approaches. J. Neurophysiol. 2018, 120, 2761–2774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Kimura, A.; Yokozawa, T.; Ozaki, H. Clarifying the Biomechanical Concept of Coordination Through Comparison with Coordination in Motor Control. Front. Sports Act. Living 2021, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wannier, T.; Bastiaanse, C.; Colombo, G.; Dietz, V. Arm to leg coordination in humans during walking, creeping and swimming activities. Exp. Brain Res. 2001, 141, 375–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Donker, S.F.; Beek, P.J.; Wagenaar, R.C.; Mulder, T. Coordination Between Arm and Leg Movements During Locomotion. J. Mot. Behav. 2001, 33, 86–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Seifert, L.; Vantorre, J.; Lemaitre, F.; Chollet, D.; Toussaint, H.M.; Vilas-Boas, J.P. Different Profiles of the Aerial Start Phase in Front Crawl. J. Strength. Cond. 2010, 24, 507–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Deschodt, V.J.; Arsac, L.M.; Rouard, A.H. Relative contribution of arms and legs in humans to propulsion in 25-m sprint front-crawl swimming. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 1999, 80, 192–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Chollet, D.; Chalies, S.; Chatard, J.C. A new index of coordination for the crawl: Description and usefulness. Int. J. Sports Med. 2000, 21, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Yanai, T. Stroke frequency in front crawl: Its mechanical link to the fluid forces required in non-propulsive directions. Jurnalul Biomec. 2003, 36, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Schneider, W.J.; McGrew, K.S. The Cattell-Horn-Carroll model of intelligence. In Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues; Flanagan, D.P., Harrison, P.L., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 99–144. [Google Scholar]
  59. Martin, J.A.; Ramsay, J.; Hughes, C.; Peters, D.M.; Edwards, M.G. Age and grip strength predict hand dexterity in adults. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0117598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Mukaka, M.M. Statistics corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med. J. 2012, 24, 69–71. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  61. Schober, P.; Boer, C.; Schwarte, L.A. (2018). Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation. Anesth. Analg. 2018, 126, 1763–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Binet, A.; Vaschide, N. Expériences de force musculaire et de fond chez les jeunes garçons. L’année Psychol. 1897, 4, 15–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Capol, M.; Walther, L. Contribution à l’étude de l’habileté manuelle. L’année Psychol. 1953, 53, 35–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fauche, S. Les paradigmes de la psychomotricité. Rev. Française Pédagogie 1994, 107, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Radu, D.I.; Ulici, G. Evaluarea şi Educarea Psihomotricităţii; Fundația Humanitas: Bucharest, Romania, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  66. Junaid, K.A.; Fellowes, S. Gender Differences in the Attainment of Motor Skills on the Movement Assessment Battery for Children. Phys. Occup. Ther. Pediatr. 2006, 26, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Jaime, M.; Longard, J.; Moore, C. Developmental changes in the visual-proprioceptive integration threshold of children. J. Exp. Child. Psychol. 2014, 125, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Rosa, H.R. Teste Goodenough-Harris e Indicadores Maturacionais de Koppitz para o Desenho da Figura Humana: Estudo Normativo para Crianças de São Paulo. Ph.D. Thesis, Instituto de Psicologia, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gherghuț, A. Sinteze de Psihopedagogie Specială. Ghid pentru Concursuri și Examene de Obținere a Gradelor Didactice; Polirom: Iași, Romania, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  70. Rosa, H.R.; Boccato Alves, I.C. Estudo normativo do Teste Goodenough-Harris em crianças na cidade de São Paulo. Bol. Acad. Paul. Psicol. 2014, 34, 336–351. [Google Scholar]
  71. Șunei, M.C.; Petracovschi, S.; Bota, E.; Almajan-Guță, B.; Nagel, A. Relationship between Body Schema and Scholar Maturity: A Study from the National College of Banat in Timisoara, Romania. Children 2022, 9, 1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. León, M.P.; González-Martí, I.; Contreras-Jordán, O.R. What Do Children Think of Their Perceived and Ideal Bodies? Understandings of Body Image at Early Ages: A Mixed Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021, 18, 4871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Schedler, S.; Kiss, R.; Muehlbauer, T. Age and sex differences in human balance performance from 6-18 years of age: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0214434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Schedler, S.; Tenelsen, F.; Wich, L.; Muehlbauer, T. Effects of balance training on balance performance in youth: Role of training difficulty. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2020, 12, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lenroot, R.K.; Giedd, J.N. Brain development in children and adolescents: Insights from anatomical magnetic resonance imaging. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2006, 30, 718–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Koolschijn, P.C.; Crone, E.A. Sex differences and structural brain maturation from childhood to early adulthood. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 2013, 5, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Barela, J.A.; Jeka, J.J.; Clark, J.E. Postural control in children. Coupling to dynamic somatosensory information. Exp. Brain Res. 2003, 150, 434–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bair, W.N.; Kiemel, T.; Jeka, J.J.; Clark, J.E. Development of multisensory reweighting for posture control in children. Exp. Brain Res. 2007, 183, 435–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. McLean, S.P.; Hinrichs, R.N. Sex differences in the centre of buoyancy location of competitive swimmers. J. Sports Sci. 2008, 16, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Battaglia, G.; Giustino, V.; Tabacchi, G.; Lanza, M.; Schena, F.; Biino, V.; Giuriato, M.; Gallotta, M.C.; Guidetti, L.; Baldari, C.; et al. Interrelationship Between Age, Gender, and Weight Status on Motor Coordination in Italian Children and Early Adolescents Aged 6–13 Years Old. Front. Pediatr. 2021, 9, 738294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Davies, P.L.; Rose, J.D. Motor skills of typically developing adolescents: Awkwardness or improvement? Phys. Occup. Ther. Pediatr. 2000, 20, 19–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. D’Hondt, E.; Deforche, B.; Vaeyens, R.; Vandorpe, B.; Vandendriessche, J.; Pion, J.; Philippaerts, R.; de Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Lenoir, M. Gross motor coordination in relation to weight status and age in 5- to 12-year-old boys and girls: A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Pediatr. Obes. 2011, 6, e556–e564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Vandorpe, B.; Vandendriessche, J.; Lefevre, J.; Pion, J.; Vaeyens, R.; Matthys, S.; Philippaerts, R.; Lenoir, M. The KörperkoordinationsTest für Kinder: Reference values and suitability for 6-12-year-old children in Flanders. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2011, 21, 378–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lopes, V.P.; Stodden, D.F.; Bianchi, M.M.; Maia, J.A.R.; Rodrigues, L.P. Correlation between BMI and motor coordination in children. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2012, 15, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Veldman, S.L.C.; Santos, R.; Jones, R.A.; Sousa-Sa, E.; Okely, A.D. Associations between gross motor skills and cognitive development in toddlers. Early Hum. Dev. 2019, 132, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hammami, R.; Granacher, U.; Makhlouf, I.; Behm, D.G.; Chaouachi, A. Sequencing effects of balance and plyometric training on physical performance in youth soccer athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 12, 3278–3289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kang, S.H.; Kim, C.W.; Kim, Y.I.L.; Kim, K.B.; Lee, S.S.; Shin, K.O. Alterations of muscular strength and left and right limb balance in weightlifters after an 8-week balance training program. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2013, 25, 895–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Karami, B.; Ali, M.; Farzaneh, Y.; Homayoun, G.; Parmoon, A. Neuromuscular training as the basis for developing the level of the static and dynamic balance in selected students of physical. Int. J. Sport. Sci. Fit. 2014, 4, 20–38. [Google Scholar]
  89. Dobrijević, S.; Moskovljević, L.; Dabović, M. The influence of proprioceptive training on young rhythmic gymnasts’ balance. Facta Univ. 2016, 14, 247–255. [Google Scholar]
  90. Yanai, T. Buoyancy is the primary source of generating bodyroll in front-crawl swimming. J. Biomech. 2004, 37, 605–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Marinho, D.A.; Barbosa, T.M.; Klendlie, P.L.; Vilas-Boas, J.P.; Alves, F.B.; Rouboa, A.I.; Silva, A.J. Swimming Simulation. In Computational Fluid Dynamics for Sport Simulation; Peter, M., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 33–61. [Google Scholar]
  92. Marinho, D.A.; Barbosa, T.M.; Costa, M.J.; Figueiredo, C.; Reis, V.M.; Silva, A.J.; Marques, M.C. Can 8-weeks of Training Affect Active Drag in Young Swimmers? J. Sports Sci. Med. 2010, 9, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  93. Pendergast, D.R.; Capelli, C.; Craig, A.B.; di Prampero, P.E.; Minetti, A.E.; Mollendorf, J.; Termin, I.I.; Zamparo, P. Biophysics in swimming. Rev. Port. Cien. Desp. 2006, 6 (Suppl. 2), 185–189. [Google Scholar]
  94. Costa, A.M.; Silva, A.J.; Louro, H.; Reis, V.M.; Garrido, N.D.; Marques, M.C.; Marinho, D.A. Can the curriculum be used to estimate critical velocity in young competitive swimmers? J. Sports Sci. Med. 2009, 8, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  95. Popescu, G. Performance, Reference Systems and Strategies for Balance Training in Syndrome Down Subjects Beginning Gymnastics. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 117, 553–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table 1. Research subjects.
Table 1. Research subjects.
AgeTotal Subjects
MaleFemale
No%No%
6–6.11 years1052.6947.4
7–7.11 years118
8–8.11 years109
9–9.11 years910
Total4036
76 (100%)
Table 2. The results of the descriptive statistical analysis by gender.
Table 2. The results of the descriptive statistical analysis by gender.
Variables/TestsSubjectsMaleFemale
MSDESMSDESMSDES
Manual dexterity—Tapping test 74.08±10.09±1.1573.38±10.21±1.6174.86±10.03±1.67
Body schema—Goodenough test19.20±3.57±0.4118.65±3.59±0.5619.81±3.48±0.58
Static balance—Flamingo test11.84±2.08±0.2311.20±2.12±0.3312.54±1.82±0.30
Body balance on water (buoyancy)—the horizontal buoyancy test18.48±2.10±0.2417.79±1.74±0.2719.24±2.23±0.37
General coordination—10 tests + Matorin test12.09±2.11±0.2411.58±2.38±0.37712.67±1.62±0.27
Front crawl style execution technique20.82±2.08±0.2420.25±2.14±0.3321.44±1.85±0.31
Backstroke style execution technique20.96±1.69±0.1920.25±1.64±0.2621.75±1.39±0.23
Table 3. The results of the descriptive statistical analysis by age.
Table 3. The results of the descriptive statistical analysis by age.
Variables/Tests6–6.11 Years7–7.11 Years8–8.11 Years9–9.11 Years
MSDESMSDESMSDESMSDES
Manual dexterity—Tapping test 62.63±7.14±1.6372.63±3.05±0.7078.68±5.22±1.2082.37±10.05±2.30
Body schema—Goodenough test14.47±1.26±0.2918.32±0.88±0.2020.42±1.07±0.2423.58±1.83±0.42
Static balance—Flamingo test9.53±1.04±0.2410.89±1.40±0.3212.86±1.21±0.2714.06±0.85±0.19
Body balance on water (buoyancy)—the horizontal buoyancy test 16.05±0.64±0.1417.79±1.03±.2319.14±1.26±0.2920.92±1.38±0.31
General coordination—10 tests + Matorin test9.42±1.34±0.3011.63±1.06±0.2413.11±1.04±0.2414.21±1.03±0.23
Front crawl style execution technique18.37±1.21±0.2720.16±1.06±0.2421.63±1.01±0.2323.11±1.24±0.28
Backstroke style execution technique19.26±1.19±0.2720.37±1.11±0.2521.42±1.01±0.2322.79±1.03±0.23
Table 4. Tests for checking the normality of data distribution.
Table 4. Tests for checking the normality of data distribution.
Research VariablesKolmogorov–SmirnovShapiro–WilkDistribution
K-SdfSig.S-WdfSig.
Manual dexterity0.146760.0000.926760.000not normal
Body schema0.096760.0780.979760.248normal
Static balance0.104760.0400.964760.031not normal
Body balance on the water (buoyancy)0.092760.1760.968760.054normal
General coordination0.127760.0040.958760.013not normal
Front crawl style technique0.101760.0530.974760.118normal
Backstroke style technique0.123760.0060.956760.010not normal
Table 5. The correlations between the independent variables and the technical execution of the front crawl style.
Table 5. The correlations between the independent variables and the technical execution of the front crawl style.
Independent VariablesDependent VariableCoefficient of CorrelationCoefficient of DeterminationAssociation LevelSig.
Manual dexterityTechnical execution of front crawl stylers = 0.63r2 = 0.40moderatep = 0.001
Body schemar = 0.80r2 = 0.64strong
Static balancers = 0.82r2 = 0.67strong
Body balance on the water (buoyancy)r = 0.78r2 = 0.61strong
General coordinationrs = 0.81r2 = 0.65strong
Table 6. The correlations between the independent variables and the technical execution of the backstroke style.
Table 6. The correlations between the independent variables and the technical execution of the backstroke style.
Independent VariablesDependent VariableCoefficient of CorrelationCoefficient of DeterminationLevel of AssociationSig.
Manual dexterityTechnical execution of backstroke stylers = 0.57r2 = 0.32moderatep = 0.001
Body schemars = 0.77r2 = 0.59strong
Static balancers = 0.81r2 = 0.65strong
Body balance on the water (buoyancy)rs = 0.85r2 = 0.72strong
General coordinationrs = 0.78r2 = 0.61strong
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Petrea, R.-G.; Moraru, C.-E.; Popovici, I.-M.; Știrbu, I.-C.; Radu, L.-E.; Chirazi, M.; Rus, C.-M.; Oprean, A.; Rusu, O. Influences of Psychomotor Behaviors on Learning Swimming Styles in 6–9-Year-Old Children. Children 2023, 10, 1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10081339

AMA Style

Petrea R-G, Moraru C-E, Popovici I-M, Știrbu I-C, Radu L-E, Chirazi M, Rus C-M, Oprean A, Rusu O. Influences of Psychomotor Behaviors on Learning Swimming Styles in 6–9-Year-Old Children. Children. 2023; 10(8):1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10081339

Chicago/Turabian Style

Petrea, Renato-Gabriel, Cristina-Elena Moraru, Ileana-Monica Popovici, Ilie-Cătălin Știrbu, Liliana-Elisabeta Radu, Marin Chirazi, Cristian-Mihail Rus, Alexandru Oprean, and Oana Rusu. 2023. "Influences of Psychomotor Behaviors on Learning Swimming Styles in 6–9-Year-Old Children" Children 10, no. 8: 1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10081339

APA Style

Petrea, R.-G., Moraru, C.-E., Popovici, I.-M., Știrbu, I.-C., Radu, L.-E., Chirazi, M., Rus, C.-M., Oprean, A., & Rusu, O. (2023). Influences of Psychomotor Behaviors on Learning Swimming Styles in 6–9-Year-Old Children. Children, 10(8), 1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10081339

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop