Antropomotoryka nr 57 [2012]. - Akademia Wychowania Fizycznego ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Anthropological evaluation of the influence of socio-economic factors on the development and physical fitness...sent, with the exception of individuals exempted fromphysical education classes. At the beginning of thestudy, the parents of participating children were askedto complete a questionnaire. Aside from parental consentto include their child in the study, the questionnaireasked for the date of birth of each child, the number ofsiblings, and paternal and maternal educational level.The study included anthropometric measurementsof basic somatic parameters taken using Martin’s technique[15]. Body height was measured using an anthropometerwith a precision of 0.1 cm. Body weightwas determined with an electronic medical scale witha precision of 100 g. Based on these values, the bodymass index (BMI) was calculated for every participant.The somatic measurements were taken during morninghours. The children were examined individually,dressed in their gym suits and barefoot.Selected motor abilities and flexibility were determinedusing a set of trials included in the protocols ofthe European Test of Physical Fitness [16]. Explosiveleg power was determined based on the length of standingbroad jump and the strength of the trunk based onthe number of sit-ups performed in 30 seconds. Theevaluation of agility was based on the time obtainedin 10 x 5m shuttle run, and the speed of upper limbmovement was based on the time obtained in the platetapping test. The sit and reach test was employed toassess flexibility [17]. The motor capacity of examinedboys was measured at the sports facilities of participatingschools during physical education classes.Three variables describing the family situation ofthe examined children, i.e., the level of paternal andmaternal education and the number of children perfamily, were selected to assess the socioeconomicstatus of the participating families. These variables arewidely accepted as indicators of socioeconomic statusof the family, and thus allow for comparative analyses.Furthermore, parents report their education data andthe number of children more eagerly than other characteristics,such as economic status of the family ordomestic relations.The level of parental (paternal and maternal) educationwas classified into three categories: 1) primaryand vocational training, 2) secondary education, and3) post-secondary education. Similarly, three categorieswere recognized within the “number of childrenper family” variable. The first category included familieswith one or two children, the second – with threechildren, and the third – with more than three children.For the purposes of this analysis, two groups located atthe opposing extremes of the socioeconomic spectrum,high or low socioeconomic status (SES), were distinguished.The first group (high SES) included childrenand adolescents of parents with secondary or post-secondaryeducation and originating from the families withone or two children. In contrast, the low SES group wascomprised of school children from multi-children families(at least three children per family), with the motherand the father possessing educational levels lower thansecondary.The data recorded in 2007 was compared to thatdata obtained in the same region in 1998 in order toanalyze the effect of changes in the factors indirectlyevaluating the socioeconomic status of the families onthe degree of somatic development and motor abilitiesof boys from rural areas. Both studies were performedby the same research team, employed the same methodsof somatic development and motor ability assessment,as well as the same criteria for the parental educationlevel and the number of children per family.Statistical analysis was carried out using Statistica6.0 package (StatSoft). Individual values of somaticparameters and motor tests were normalized for theindividual age groups by arithmetic means and standarddeviations. Each parameter was presented inT scale, where T = 10z + 50, where z is the normalizedvalue of measurements; and in timescale, whereT = 10(–1) + 50. The normalization procedure enabledthe amalgamation of all the categories of boys aged10–11, 14–15, and 17–18 years.The variables possessing the most significant impacton the basic somatic characteristics, motor abilities,and flexibility of our participants were identifiedusing multiple regression analysis. Additionally, thesignificance of the differences between the normalizedvalues of somatic parameters and motor tests determinedin 1998 and in 2007 in groups characterized byhigh and low SES was analyzed using the Student’st-test. Statistical significance of all tests was set atp < 0.05.ResultsThe SES structure of examined children within the analyzedage categories is presented in Table 1. Analysisof the data presented in this table indicates a considerablevariability in the distribution of high and low SES in1998 and in 2007. In 1998, all of the analyzed age categorieswere characterized by a relatively small fractionof individuals with high SES and a high percentage of– 105 –
Helena Popławska, Krystyna Buchta, Agnieszka Dmitriuknormalised values56545250484644** *body height body mass BMIhigh SES 1998 54,2 54,0 52,8low SES 1998 49,3 48,6 48,5high SES 2007 51,2 52,7 52,7low SES 2007 47,6 47,5 48,4Figure 1. Normalized values of somatic features of boys aged 10–11 (T scale)those with low SES. In contrast, the opposite was observedin the SES structure determined in 2007.The results of regression analysis, expressed asbeta coefficients, and the percentage values of adjustedcoefficients of determination (R 2 ) illustrating thedegree of the variability of each dependent variable asa result of the effects of the socioeconomic characteristicsincluded in this study, are presented in Tables 2 and3. The values of standardized beta coefficients suggestweak (insignificant) associations between the paternaland maternal education levels and somatic parametersin both time periods of the study. With regards to thepaternal education level, only the positive correlationspertained to body height and weight in boys from theyoungest age category analyzed in 2007. Significanteffects of the “number of children per family” variableon the somatic development was revealed in the casesof the boys aged 10–11 and 14–15 years analyzed atthe end of the 1990s. However, a comparable relationshipwas not documented in 2007. The socioeconomicvariables examined in this study explained only a smallfraction of variance in the analyzed somatic parameters(approximately 5% in the case of body height andnearly 8% for body weight). More frequently, the effectsnormalised values605550454035* **30body height body mass BMIhigh SES 1998 48,3 53,7 56,1low SES 1998 50,6 49,7 48,7high SES 2007 50,6 51,2 51,0low SES 2007 42,1 42,8 47,4Figure 2. Normalized values of somatic features of boys aged 14–15 (T scale)– 106 –
Page 2:
ISSN 1731-0652COMMITTEE FOR REHABIL
Page 5 and 6:
ANTROPOMOTORYKAISSN 1731-0652KOMITE
Page 7 and 8:
NR 57 ANTROPOMOTORYKA20
Page 9 and 10:
From Editorsching stimulus had a po
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16:
ORIGINAL PAPERSPRACE ORYGINALNE
Page 19 and 20:
Kazimierz Mikołajec, Adam Maszczyk
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 28 and 29:
NR 57 2012ANTROPOMOTORY
Page 30 and 31:
The impact of rapid weight loss on
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
NR 57 2012ANTROPOMOTORY
Page 38 and 39:
Body response of hurdle runners to
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44:
Page 47 and 48:
Ewa Dybińska, Marcin Kaca, Magdale
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56: Ewa Dybińska, Marcin Kaca, Magdale
Page 58 and 59: NR 57 2012ANTROPOMOTORY
Page 60 and 61: Assessment of the effectiveness of
Page 62 and 63: Assessment of the effectiveness of
Page 66 and 67: Walking as a tool of physical fitne
Page 76 and 77: Functional and dynamic asymmetry in
Page 82: Functional and dynamic asymmetry in
Page 85 and 86: Beata Wojtyczek, Małgorzata Pasła
Page 91 and 92: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward MleczkoCe
Page 93 and 94: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward MleczkoD.
Page 95 and 96: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward MleczkoTa
Page 101 and 102: Jerzy Januszewski, Edward Mleczkoof
Page 108 and 109: Anthropological evaluation of the i
Page 114: REVIEW PAPERSPRACE PRZEGLĄDOWE
Page 117 and 118: Emilia Mikołajewska, Dariusz Miko
show all

Antropomotoryka nr 57 [2012]. - Akademia Wychowania Fizycznego ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?