Premium
The relationship between the effect of setting a goal on standing broad jump performance and behaviour regulation ability in children with intellectual disability
Author(s) -
Kokubun M.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
journal of intellectual disability research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.941
H-Index - 104
eISSN - 1365-2788
pISSN - 0964-2633
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2788.1999.43120149.x
Subject(s) - intellectual disability , psychology , developmental psychology , jump , physical medicine and rehabilitation , psychiatry , medicine , physics , quantum mechanics
The objectives of the present study were to investigate the differences in standing broad jump performance between two task conditions (with and without goal) and to clarify the relation of verbal behaviour regulation to this difference in children with intellectual disability. The subjects were 30 children with intellectual disability with an average age of 16.2 years. In the without‐goal condition, subjects were instructed to jump as far as possible. In the with‐goal condition, on the other hand, subjects were given a goal set 20 cm away from the distance of the first trial in the without‐goal condition and instructed to jump for the goal. Verbal behaviour regulation ability was measured by three tasks on Garfield's motor impersistence test: keeping eyes closed, protruding tongue with eyes open and keeping mouth open. The mean performance of the with‐goal condition was 108 cm, while that of the without‐goal condition was 102 cm. The difference between these results was significant, thus indicating the effectiveness of setting a goal to improve jumping performance. Among three independent variables (chronological age, IQ and behaviour regulation score), only the behaviour regulation score was found to be significantly related to the condition difference. It was more effective to demonstrate the goal when the behaviour regulation abilities of the children were lower, but giving the children a goal was not effective for subjects with Down's syndrome. Children with Down's syndrome were considered to have a deficiency in the motor ability itself, not in the system for expressing the motor ability.