تاثیر پایگاه اجتماعی‌-‌اقتصادی خانواده بر رشد حرکتی کودک: مدل ساختاری با میانجی‌گری فعالیت بدنی مادر

زمینه و هدف: رشد حرکتی زیربنای مهارت‌های اساسی بزرگسالی است. هدف از این تحقیق تعیین وضعیت رشد حرکتی کودکان و بررسی تاثیرات خانواده و والدین بر رشد حرکتی کودکان سنین پیش از دبستان بود.روش‌بررسی: روش پژوهش از نوع توصیفی-همبستگی (مدل‌یابی معادلات ساختاری) بود. شرکت‌کنندگان این تحقیق 150 کودک 4تا6ساله (از هر ردهٔ سنی 50 نفر) به‌همراه مادران آن‌ها بودند که در استان آذربایجان شرقی، شهرستان سراب سکونت داشتند و به‌صورت خوشه‌ای از مراکز مهدکودک-پیش‌دبستانی‌ها انتخاب شدند. پرسش‌نامهٔ جمعیت‌شناختی، پرسش‌نامهٔ وضعیت اجتماعی-اقتصادی قدرت نما (1392)، فرم کوتاه پرسش‌نامهٔ بین‌المللی فعالیت بدنی و فرم کوتاه نسخهٔ دوم آزمون تبحر حرکتی برونینکس-ازرتسکی از ابزارهای اندازه‌گیری این تحقیق بودند. جهت تحلیل داده‌ها از نرم‌افزارهای spss نسخهٔ 16 و smart pls3 استفاده شد. یافته‌ها: نتایج حاصل نشان داد که وضعیت رشد حرکتی کودکان خیلی کمتر از حد متوسط است (11٫156±28٫85)؛ وضعیت اجتماعی-اقتصادی خانواده‌ها بر رشد حرکتی کودکان دارای تاثیر معناداری بود (0٫001>p و 0٫425=β)؛ اما بر فعالیت بدنی مادران تاثیر معناداری نداشت (0٫348= p و 0٫076=β)؛ همچنین فعالیت بدنی مادران بر رشد حرکتی کودکان تاثیر معناداری داشت (0٫011=p و 0٫204=β).نتیجه‌گیری: وضعیت اجتماعی-اقتصادی خانواده تسهیل‌کنندهٔ رشد حرکتی کودکان است؛ اما محدودکنندهٔ فعالیت بدنی مادران می‌باشد؛ همچنین فعالیت بدنی مادران نقش محرک رشد حرکتی کودکان را دارد. بر این اساس به‌نظر می‌رسد حمایت‌های خانواده یا الگوسازی مادران باعث بهبود رشد حرکتی کودکان سنین پیش از دبستان می‌شود.

Family's socio-economic status on motor development of children: structure modeling with intermediation of mother's physical activity

Background & Objective: Childhood is a critical period for motor development. The developmental potentials of preschool aged children are basic for many adult skills. The researchers showed that the motor development of preschool aged children is not pleasant. Several hereditary and environmental factors can affect children’s motor development, but the environmental factors are important than hereditary elements, because they are flexible and changeable. The socioeconomic status of families and mothers are important between other environment factors because children have long and close dependence to their families. The variable world technology leads to poverty movements that can danger for physical health of individuals, families, and society or exist the cognitive or socioemotional problems. These variables can be limiter or provider. It means that the families or parents may have a supportive and modelling role or preventer. This research investigated children’s motor development status and studied the families and parent effects on preschool aged children’s motor development.Methods: The methodology of this research was descriptive–correlation (structural equation modeling). The participants were 150 (4–year–old: n=50, 5–year–old: n=50, 6–year–old: n=50) children with 4–6 aged (65.56±8.55 month old) and their mothers (34.38±5.81 years old) that lived in Sarab city in Eastern Azerbaijan province (Northwest of Iran), and chosen by cluster sampling. The equipment were demographic questionnaire (age, high, width of children and the age of mothers), Godratnama socioeconomic questionnaire (with subscales of income, education, economic category, and home), short form of international physical activity (IPAQ–sf) questionnaire (three levels of inactive, sufficient mobility, and much mobility measured by the cost of expenditure energy or Meets) and short form of the second edition of motor proficiency of Bruininks–Oseretsky (BOT2–Sf) test (with subscales of bilateral coordination, balance, speed running and agility, strength, manual dexterity, upper limb coordination, fine motor integration, fine motor precision). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of Godratnama questionnaire was 0.72, the test–retests reliability coefficient of BOT2–Sf and IPAQ–Sf were 0.809, and 0.86. The entrance criterion was no apparent disorders of vision, hearing, physical, motor, and behavior of mothers and children. The mothers’ filled written consent and all three questionnaires, then the children participated in motor proficiency test. All data analyzed by SPSS ver.16 and Smart PLS3 software.Results: The motor development of children was lower than average (28.85±11.156). The higher than seventy values of Bruninks test showed the most higher than average of motor development status, but it was lower than thirty value express and the most lower than average of motor development status. The socioeconomic status of families had a positive and significant effect on motor development of children (β=0.425, p<0.0001), but had not positive and significant effect on mother’s physical activity (β=0.076, p=0.348). In addition, the mother’s physical activity had significant effect on motor development of children (β=0.204, p=0.011). It means that direct effect of socioeconomic status on motor development of children was significant, but non–direct effect of it was not (by mediation of mothers physical activity) significant.Conclusion: The status of children’s motor development was not optimal. The families’ socioeconomic status was as a stimulus for children’s motor development, but as a preventive for mothers’ physical activity, and the mother’s physical activities had a facilitator role on motor development of children. Then it seems that the financial or time support of families or modelling of mothers can facilitate the motor development of children.