ADAPTED PHYSICAL ACTIVITY QUARTERLY, 1996,13,400-414 O 1996 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

Motor Skill Performances of Children Who Are Deaf

Gail M. Dummer, John L. Haubenstricker, and David A. Stewart

Michigan State University

The Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) was used to assess the funda- mental motor skills of 91 girls and 110 boys aged 4 to 18 years who attended two schools for students who are deaf. Average hearing loss, determined by better ear average, was 96.94 dB (SD = 14.40 dB). Modifications to the procedures for administering the TGMD included visual demonstrations and the use of signing to communicate instructions. The raw score means of subjects aged &10 years who were deaf were lower than those of the TGMD standardization sample of same-aged children who could hear at six of seven age levels on both the object- control and locomotor subscales. However, there were relatively small differ- ences in the mean scores of the two groups. Subjects with mature movement patterns for the throw, kick, jump, and run performed better on quantitative tests for those skills than subjects with immature patterns. Typical age and gender patterns of skill acquisition were revealed for both the qualitative and quantita- tive aspects of the fundamental motor skills examined.

Organizations within the Deaf' community sponsor a variety of competitive and noncompetitive sport activities for people who are deaf. The extent of these activities and the number of participants make Deaf sport the most prominent so- cial institution within the Deaf community (Stewart, 1991). Thus, whether a per- son who is deaf is athletic or not, sport is a readily available avenue for socialization into the local Deaf community. Sport also socializes people who are deaf into the community at large because it provides an equal playing field where communica- tion between people who are deaf and those who are hearing is not a significant barrier-both groups can interact with one another on a meaningful and nonthreat- ening basis (Stewart, 1991). Furthermore, in schools, sports provide an opportu- nity for social interactions that help children who are deaf develop a favorable self-appraisal of their social competence (Stewart & Stinson, 1992).

The authors are with the College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lan- sing, MI 48824.

'The capitalized term Deaf refers to people who have a hearing loss and are part of a culture that uses sign language as the primary means of communication. The term deaf refers to anyone who has some degree of hearing loss.

Motor Skills 40 1

The benefits of participating in sport at any level of competition are increased if a person has the prerequisite motor skills. Successful participation in sports such as baseball, basketball, gymnastics, track and field, and volleyball depends upon competence in fundamental motor skills such as running, jumping, hopping, throw- ing, catching, kicking, and striking (Haubenstricker & Seefeldt, 1986). In com- parison with less skilled players, persons with good fundamental motor skills are better prepared to learn the advanced skills associated with specific sports. In addi- tion, they are more likely to "make the team," experience more playing time, and advance to higher levels of competition. Obviously, the higher the skill level, the greater the opportunities for participation. Thus, fundamental motor skills are im- portant to children who are deaf because better skills lead to more participation in Deaf sports as well as more opportunities for social interaction.

A comprehensive literature review on the motor skills of persons who are deaf (Goodman & Hopper, 1992) revealed few investigations of fundamental mo- tor skills. In one of the earliest studies, Geddes (1978) administered the Geddes Psychomotor Inventory to a small sample of 11 children aged 4-6 years, 9 of whom were deaf and 2 of whom were hard of hearing. The inventory included an assess- ment of motor development for the skills of walking, running, jumping, hopping, throwing, catching, and kicking. Geddes concluded that her subjects performed at age level on these skills.

The most definitive investigations of the fundamental motor skills of per- sons who are deaf were conducted by Butterfield (Butterfield, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1991; Butterfield & Ersing, 1987a, 1987b, 1988). Butterfield's sample for these studies included 75 boys and 57 girls aged 3-14 years from schools for students who are deaf. Over 95% of the sample had a hearing loss of 60 dB or greater in the better ear. The Scale of Intra-Gross Motor Abilities (SIGMA; Loovis & Ersing, 1979) was individually administered to each subject, with directions given in the child's preferred mode of communication. Initially, Butterfield compared the perfor- mances of his sample of 132 children who were deaf to reference data for same- aged children who could hear (Butterfield, 1986). He concluded that the children who were deaf were delayed in their acquisition of age-appropriate form for catch- ing, jumping, kicking, and hopping. His subjects performed at similar levels as children who could hear on the skills of walking, running, skipping, throwing, striking, ladder climbing, and stair climbing.

In subsequent studies, using the original sample of 132 subjects, Butterfield conducted a series of linear discriminant function analyses to determine the influ- ences of age, gender, hearing loss, etiology, and balance on the performance of selected fundamental motor skills by children who were deaf. Balance was as- sessed using the modified stork stand and heel-toe balance beam subtests from the short form of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (Butterfield, 1987). Age, dynamic balance, and static balance contributed to the discriminant functions for jumping (Butterfield & Ersing, 1987a), kicking (Butterfield & Ersing, 1987b), catching (Butterfield & Ersing, 1988), throwing (Butterfield, 1989), and running (Butterfield, 1991). Gender did not contribute to function for any of the five skills. Extent of hearing loss contributed to the function only for kicking. In all of the significant results, performance of the selected skills improved with increasing chronological age, as would be anticipated for typically developing children. As expected, subjects with better dynamic and static balance scores performed better

402 Dummer, Haubenstricker, and Stewarf

on fundamental motor skills. However, subjects with greater hearing losses per- formed better on kicking than those with better hearing.

Using a different sample of 54 children who were deaf and 56 children who could hear, aged 3-8 years, Butterfield, van der Mars, and Chase (1991) used the SIGMA to evaluate performances on selected fundamental motor skills. Children who were deaf performed better than their hearing peers on striking and running at age 5-6 years. Children who could hear performed better on skipping at age 3 4 years, catching at 5-6 years, and jumping at 7-8 years.

Although Butterfield's research verifies delays in the acquisition of some fundamental motor skills, the extant literature shows that children who are deaf generally perform fundamental motor skills at a level comparable to their same- age peers who can hear. The instrumentation used in most of the research on fun- damental motor skills was the SIGMA. Unfortunately, the SIGMA does not adequately assess mature performance for some fundamental motor skills, in that the highest performance level described for these skills is not a mature movement pattern (e.g., the SIGMA does not specify a forward-leaning takeoff position for the horizontal jump). Because mature fundamental motor skills are essential to the acquisition of more complex movements and sport skills, this issue deserves fur- ther investigation in children who are deaf.

In the present study, the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD; Ulrich, 1985) was used to assess the fundamental motor skills of children who were deaf. The results of this assessment were compared with reference data for children who were hearing. In addition, because little is known concerning the extent to which individu- als beyond age 10 acquire fundamental motor skills, performance on the TGMD of older individuals (age 11-18) who were deaf were investigated. The relationships between maturity of motor skill patterns and performances on the throw for distance, kick for distance, jump for distance, and running speed were also examined to deter- mine if they were consistent with the results found for individuals who could hear.

Methods

Subjects The subjects for this investigation were students from two schools for children who are deaf, one in the midwestern region of the United States (School A) and one in the province of Ontario, Canada (School B). All subjects met the following criteria: a primary diagnosis of deafness; hearing loss of greater than 55 dB in the better ear; absence of significant motor, vision, behavior, or learning impairments; chronological age of 4-18; and parental consent. From a potential sample of 21 1 students, 10 children were excluded because of multiple disabilities, namely cere- bral palsy (n = 5), severe learning disability (n = 2), severe vision impairment (n = I), behavior disorder (n = I), and acute orthopedic injury (n = I).

The resulting sample of 20 1 children included 9 1 girls and 110 boys aged 4-1 8 years. School records provided data on degree of hearing loss, etiology of deafness, and age at onset of hearing loss. Degree of hearing loss could only be determined for 175 subjects, whose better ear average was 96.94 dB (SD = 14.40 dB). For 19 sub- jects, the degree of hearing loss could not be assessed by an audiological examination, and for 7 subjects the degree of hearing loss was not available in school records.

Motor Skills 403

However, school personnel stated that for each of these 26 children, the degree of hearing loss was severe to profound (i.e., 70 dB or greater). The cause of deafness was unknown in 53% of the cases, genetic in 18%, meningitis in 11%, rubella in 7%, fever in 3%, and other causes (e-g., accident, anoxia, cytomegalovirus, prematurity, RH factor, Waardenburg syndrome) in 8%. Most of the subjects became deaf before the age at which language typically is acquired (2 years of age). Age at onset of hearing loss was congenital for 70%, prelingual for 21%, and postlingual for 9%.

Both schools involved in this study provided regular programs of physical edu- cation instruction and after-school sports. Anecdotal information from teachers sug- gested that the physical education programs at both schools focused on body management skills, fundamental motor skills, and low-organized games during the elementary grades, with increasing emphasis on sports skills and physical fitness as students progressed through the intermediate and secondary grades. Table 1 provides data on the mean number of years of physical education instruction for subjects at different age levels as well as the mean number of school sports in which subjects had participated. ANCOVA results, with age in months as the covariate, revealed that students at School B received more years of instruction in physical education than students at School A, F(l, 198) = 49.51, p < .05. Students at School B also partici- pated in more school sports than students at School A, F(l, 198) =4.63,p < .05. There were no significant differences between boys and girls for either years of physical education instruction received or number of school sports participated in.

Table 1 Years of Physical Education Instruction and Number of School Sports Reported by Children Who Were Deaf

School A School B

Years of PE Number Years of PE Number instruction of sports instruction of sports

Age n M SD M SD n M SD M SD

Dummer, Haubenstricker, and Stewart

Instrumentation

Qualitative Aspects of Fundamental Motor Skills. The TGMD, which as- sesses components of mature fundamental motor skills, was administered to each subject. One point is awarded for each skill component that is correctly performed. For example, to achieve a perfect score (4 points) on the overhand throw, the indi- vidual must demonstrate a downward arc of the throwing arm to initiate the windup, rotation of the hip and shoulder to a point where the nondominant side of the body faces the target, weight transfer by stepping with the foot opposite the throwing hand, and a diagonal follow-through of the throwing arm after ball release. The TGMD includes seven locomotor skills (run, gallop, hop, leap, horizontal jump, skip, and slide) and five object-control skills (two-hand strike, stationary bounce, catch, kick, and overhand throw). A perfect score on the locomotor subscale is 26 points and on the object-control subscale 19 points.

Quantitative Aspects of Fundamental Motor Skills. The subjects completed three trials each of the throw for distance, kick for distance, and jump for distance, and two trials of the 15-yard dash concurrently with administration of the TGMD test items for the throw, kick, jump, and run. The TGMD testing protocol described by Ulrich (1985) was modified for those test items by asking subjects to "throw as far as you can," "kick as far as you can," "jump as far as you can," and "run as fast as you can," so that accurate quantitative data could be obtained for these skills. Throwing and kicking distances were measured to the nearest half foot (15.24 cm), jumping distances to the nearest inch (2.54 cm), and running speed to the hundredth of a sec- ond. Subjects were given a "running start" for the 15-yard (13.8-m) dash. The stop- watch was started 5 yards (4.6 m) into the run and was stopped 15 yards later.

Pe$orvnance Consistency. The schedule approved by each school did not provide time for obtaining retest data on the performances of the students. There- fore, intertrial correlation coefficients were calculated to estimate performance consistency. Spearman rank order correlation coefficients were calculated across 2-year age intervals for the object-control and locomotor subscales of the TGMD, and Pearson product-moment coefficients were obtained for quantitative perfor- mances on the throw, kick, run, and jump (see Table 2). Performance on the object- control subscale was very consistent, with all values .90 or above. Correlation values for the locomotor subscale were below .90 after age 12. This outcome may reflect a ceiling effect in the scores obtained, thus reducing the range of scores and increasing the likelihood of a diminished coefficient. Quantitative performances on the throw, run, and jump were quite consistent, with correlation values ranging from .76 to .94. However, trial-to-trial performance on the kick for distance was inconsistent, with average coefficients ranging from .20 to .7 1. The lack of consis- tency may have been due to the nature of the task (foot-eye coordination), inexpe- rience in kicking a ball for maximum distance, the method of scoring used (distance in flight), or a combination of these factors.

Procedures

All tests were conducted in the gymnasia at the participating schools. At each school, the gymnasium was divided into three stations, with selected TGMD skills assessed at each station. At each station one person was responsible for test admin-

tion, another person served as interpreter, and a third individual videotaped

Motor Skills 405

Table 2 Reliability Coefficients for the Performances of Children Who Were Deaf on the TGMD Subscales and Selected Motor Skills

TGMDa Quantitative performanceb

Age Object- w“'P n control Locomotor Throw Kick Run Jump

"Rank order correlation coefficients were calculated because subscale scores on the TGMD represent qualitative performances. Coefficients represent best trial versus next best trial across skills for each subscale. bPearson correlation coefficients were calculated for the quantitative performance scores. The values for the throw, kick, and jump are the average of three coefficients obtained for three pairs of trials (T,,, T,,, T,,). The values for the run are single coefficients because only two trials of the run were administered.

the subjects' performances. All interpreters were skilled in American Sign Lan- guage, pidgin signing (the common communication system used at both schools), and Signed English. The communication behaviors of the interpreters were moni- tored by one of the investigators who is profoundly deaf and who is bilingual in American Sign Language and English. All members of the testing staff, including the interpreters, received prior training in administration of the TGMD.

The subjects arrived in the gymnasium in groups of about 12 students. The subjects in each group were randomly assigned to begin testing at one of the three stations. Each subgroup of 3 to 4 subjects then rotated through the three stations until all tests were completed. Depending on age and maturity levels, the time needed for a group of subjects to complete all tests ranged from 60 to 90 min. With few exceptions, subjects completed all of the test items on a single day. The testing protocol resulted in each subject being observed by two or three peers while per- forming the tasks at each station. However, their presence did not appear to have any negative influence on the performance of any of the subjects.

Prior to the administration of each test item, the skill being assessed was dem- onstrated and instructions for that skill test were provided using demonstration, speech, and signs (Stewart, Dummer, & Haubenstricker, 1990). The type of signs used (i.e., American Sign Language, pidgin signing, Signed English) depended upon student preference. If a subject showed any signs of confusion about the directions for per- forming a skill, additional demonstrations and instruction were provided. Subjects were allowed to repeat trials when such misunderstandings were apparent.

The subjects were videotaped as they performed three trials of each skill. Dis- tances for the throw, kick, and jump, and times for the 15-yard dash were recorded

406 Dummer, Haubenstricker, and Stewart

immediately following each trial. Subsequent scoring of the videotaped performances followed the protocol described by Ulrich (1985). Two investigators independently scored the videotaped performances, with 92% agreement on attainment of specific skill components and 87% agreement on mastery of entire skills (interobserver agree- ment = agreementsltotal observations). Complete data for the seven locomotor skills were obtained for 197 subjects, and complete data for the five object-control skills were obtained for 195 subjects. Absence on the second day of testing (n = 1) and insufficient videotape footage (n = 3) accounted for the missing locomotor data, while insufficient time to complete testing (n = 3) and insufficient videotape footage (n = 3) accounted for the missing object-control data.

Because this study was scheduled during the winter months, it was neces- sary to conduct all tests indoors. The maximum possible throwingikicking dis- tances in the gymnasia used for testing were limited to 80 feet (24.38 m) at School A and 90 feet (27.43 m) at School B. Whenever a subject's throw or kick resulted in the ball hitting the far wall of the gymnasium, the recorded distance was either 80 or 90 feet, depending upon the gymnasium dimensions.

Results

Performances on the TGMD

Visual comparisons of mean scores in the present study revealed that children aged 4- 10 who were deaf scored lower than same-aged children who could hear (Ulrich, 1985) at six of seven age levels on both the TGMD object-control and locomotor subscales. The 4-year-old children who were deaf performed better than the Ulrich sample on both subscales; however, our small sample size prohibits conclusive com- parisons of motor skills across the two groups. In general, there were relatively small differences in the mean scores of the two groups (Table 3). These comparisons were limited to a mixed sample of boys and girls aged 4-10 because of the lack of norma- tive data for other age groups. Furthermore, the small sample sizes of children who were deaf at each age level and the lack of available raw data from the standardization sample precluded the use of inferential statistics for comparative purposes.

ANCOVA results revealed that age in months (the covariate) accounted for the most variance in performance of both the locomotor skills, F(l, 192) = 155.95, p < .05, and the object-control skills, F(1, 190) = 334.96, p < .05, with mean scores in- creasing as a function of increasing chronological age. However, no qualitative dif- ferences in performance were found between boys and girls on the TGMD subscale scores for the locomotor skills, F(l, 192) = 3.32, p > .05, or the object-control skills, F(1, 190) = 1.22, p > .05. There was a significant difference in performance between the two schools on the object-control skills, F(l, 190) = 12.25, p < .05, with subjects from School A performing better than subjects from School B. No differences were found between the two schools on the locomotor skills, F(l, 192) = .94, p > .05.

Partial correlations controlled for age indicated no relationship between years of physical education instruction and performance on either the object-control skills, r = .05, p > .05, or the Iocomotor skills, r = .04,p > .05. However, the partial correla- tions did reveal a statistically significant, but low, positive relationship between the number of school sports in which subjects had participated and performance on both the object-control skills, r = .21, p < .05, and the locomotor skills, r = .24, p < .05.

Motor Skills 407

Tabie 3 Performances of Children Who Were Deaf on the TGMD Compared to Normative Data for Children Who Were Hearing

TGMD locomotor subscale TGA4D objectcontrol subscale (maximum score = 26 points) (maximum score = 19 points)

Deaf Hearinga Deaf Hearing Age M SD n M SD n M S D n M S D n

'Data from Ulrich (1985).

Performances of Specific Fundamental Motor Skills

Ulrich (1985, p. 15) published norms concerning the age at which 60% of children can correctly perform all components of specific fundamental motor skills. Using this criterion, we found that the earliest acquired object-control skill for children who were deaf was the catch (age 9), followed by the bounce and the kick (age lo), strike (age 12), and throw (age 13). Comparisons of these data with the stan- dardization sample suggest that children who are deaf demonstrate delays of 1 to 3 years in the acquisition of object-control skills (Table 4). The skill components missed most frequently by children who were deaf in the present study included the downward arc of the throwing arm to initiate the windup on the throw, sequential rotation of the hip and shoulder on ihe throw, bending the elbows to absorb force on the catch, hip and spine rotation on the strike, weight transfer on the strike, airborne followthrough on the kick, and pushing the ball with the fingers on the bounce.

The earliest acquired locomotor skills for children who were deaf were the run and slide (age 43, followed by the gallop (age 7), hop (age 81, jump and skip (age lo), and leap (age 16). In comparison with children who could hear (Ulrich, 1985), children who were deaf acquired skill in running, sliding, and galloping at younger ages; skill in hopping and jumping at the same age; and skill in skipping and leaping at later ages (Table 5). Specific skill components that were pariicu-

408 Dummer, Haubenstricker, and Stewart

Table 4 Percentages of Children Who Were Deaf Who Correctly Performed All Components on TGMD Object-Control Skills

Strike Bounce Catch Kick Throw (mastery (mastery (mastery (mastery (mastery

Age n age = 10) age = 8) age = 8) age = 10) age = 10)

Note. Mastery age refers to the age at which 60% of the TGMD standardization sample correctly performed all skill components.

larly difficult for subjects included forceful extension of the arms on the jump, swinging the nonsupport leg in a pendular fashion on the hop, the nonsupport phase of the leap, and the forward reach on the leap.

Relationship of TGMD Performances to Motor Skill Tests

The mean performances of the subjects at each age level on the throw for distance, kick for distance, jump for distance, and 15-yard dash are presented in Table 6. ANCOVA tests, with gender and TGMD scores for each skill as independent vari- ables (subjects could score from 0 to 4 points on each skill) and age in months as the covariate, revealed that boys had better quantitative scores than girls on throw- ing, kicking, and jumping for distance (but not on the 15-yard dash), and that subjects with higher qualitative scores also had higher quantitative performances.

Age in months (the covariate) accounted for the most variance on the throw for distance, F(1, 127) = 747.04, p < .05, kick for distance, F(1, 156) = 274.54 ,~ < .05, jump for distance, F(l, 183) = 414 .33 ,~ < .05, and 15-yard dash, F(1, 190) = 415.85, p < .05. Statistically significant differences for gender favoring the boys were obtained for the throw for distance, F(1, 127) = 28.08, p < .05, kick for distance, F(1,156) = 20 .58 ,~ < .05, and jump for distance, F(1,183) = 14.68 ,~ < .05, but not for the 15-yard dash, F(l, 190) = .98, p > .05. Significant differences for

2 4

Table 5 Percentage of Children Who Were Deaf Who Correctly Performed All Components on TGMD Locomotor Skills E - - 0)

Run Gallop HOP Leap Jump Skip Slide (mastery (mastery (mastery (mastery (mastery (mastery (mastery

Age n age = 6) age = 8) age = 8) age = 9) age = 10) age = 7) age = 9)

Note. Mastery age refers to the age at which 60% of the TGMD standardization sample correctly performed all skills components.

Table 6 Performances of Children Who Were Deaf on Motor Skills Tests

Throw for Kick for Jump for 15-yard distance (ft) distance (ft) distance (in.) dash (s)

Agelsex Ma SD n Ma SD n M SD n M SD n

aNumbers in parentheses after the mean values for the throw and kick refer to the number of subjects whose throw or kick resulted in the ball hitting the far wall of the gymnasium (a distance of 80 ft at School A and 90 ft at School b). Because their performances could not be accurately measured, they were recorded as either 80 feet or 90 feet depending upon the gymnasium used (1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm).

41 2 Dummer, Haubenstricker, and Stewart

TGMD skill level were found for the throw for distance, F(4,127) = 28.68 ,~ < .05, kick for distance, F(4,156) = 2.89, p < .05, jump for distance, F(4, 183) = 19 .39 ,~ < .05, and 15-yard dash, F(4, 190) = 42.26, p < .05. In each instance, the better quantitative performances were associated with more qualitative skill components.

Discussion

The results of this investigation showed differences in the rate of development of fundamental motor skills in children who were deaf compared to children who could hear. The mean scores for children who were deaf aged 4 years were higher than the scores for same-aged children who could hear from the normative sample (Ulrich, 1985) on both object-control and locomotor skills. Although the sample size at age 4 was very small, precluding any firm conclusions, the higher performance levels of children who were deaf may have occurred because children who were deaf started their formal schooling at an early age and received physical education as part of their cumculum. The mean scores for children aged 5 to 10 years who were deaf were lower than the mean scores for same-aged children who could hear from the norma- tive sample (Ulrich, 1985) on both the object-control and locomotor subscales of the TGMD. Nevertheless, the differences in mean object-control and locomotor scores at any given age level were relatively small, usually representing a difference of two or three skill components across a variety of skills. However, the fact that many individu- als beyond age 10 did not perform all skills at a mature level implies that greater emphasis must be placed on teaching toward mature performance during the early grades, or that instructors must be ready to teach fundamental motor skills in the context of sports and games during later elementary and middle-school grades.

Findings on the acquisition of specific skills and skill components suggest that children who are deaf demonstrate a typical sequence of motor skill acquisi- tion (Haubenstricker & Seefeldt, 1986). Children in this sample demonstrated some delay in the acquisition of the catch, bounce, kick, strike, throw, skip, and leap. They acquired skill in the hop and jump at expected age levels and were relatively advanced in their attainment of the run, slide, and gallop. The skills and skill com- ponents that were easiest for this sample of children to perform generally were the earliest skills acquired by the TGMD standardization sample (Ulrich, 1985).

Data also indicated that the age patterns of skill acquisition in the children in this study were similar to those described for children who could hear. For the children in this sample, increasing chronological age was associated with better qualitative movement patterns (e.g., better form) as well as better quantitative per- formances (e.g., greater distance, more speed). As expected, subjects with more mature movement patterns for throwing, kicking, jumping, and running, as as- sessed by the TGMD, performed better on the quantitative tests than children with less mature patterns. These results are consistent with other studies of fundamental motor skills in children who are deaf (Butterfield, 1986; Geddes, 1978) and in other populations of children (Haubenstricker & Seefeldt, 1986).

There were no gender differences in qualitative movement patterns; how- ever, gender differences did emerge on the quantitative tests, where boys per- formed better than girls on the throw, kick, and jump for distance but not on the 15-yard dash. The lack of gender differences in the qualitative (movement pattern) performance may be due, in part, to the fact that the TGMD scores for

Motor Skills 41 3

object-control and locomotor skills are composite scores that represent the sum of skill components across all skills within each subscale. Thus, weaker performance by girls compared to boys on some skills (e.g., throwing) could be offset by stron- ger performance on other skills (e.g., ball bouncing). In this study, gender differ- ences in qualitative performance on individual skills were not analyzed. On the other hand, when using the SIGMA to study qualitative performance on individual skills, Butterfield and Ersing also did not find gender differences for jumping (1987a), kicking (1987b), and catching (1988). In addition, Butterfield found no gender differences for throwing (1989) and running (1991). These results are in contrast to those reported by other investigators for subjects who could hear (Haubenstricker & Seefeldt, 1986). Perhaps the opportunities to learn fundamen- tal motor skills are more similar for boys and girls who are deaf than for boys and girls who can hear.

The fact that the children in this sample performed at lower levels than chil- dren who could hear at some age levels and on some skills may indicate that the focus of instruction did not adequately emphasize the development of form in these skills (i.e., the majority of the sample reported no prior instruction in the leap). Thus, children who are deaf could benefit from an improvement in the ways or the extent to which skills are taught in their physical education classes. The finding that students in School A performed significantly better on object-control skills than students in School B, when the latter had more years of physical educa- tion instruction, is somewhat surprising, until the amount of time scheduled for physical education in each school is examined. Children at the elementary and middle-school levels in School A received 180 min of physical education instruc- tion per week, exclusive of time reserved for swimming, whereas children in School B received only 90 min of instruction. This discrepancy in instructional time could account for the results obtained. The amount of time specifically devoted to object- control skill instruction in either school is not known.

The finding that students with higher TGMD scores reported greater involve- ment in school sports suggests either self-selection or recruitment of higher skilled students into sports. This process also is reflected in the Deaf community, where higher skilled athletes participate in more competitive sports not only with other athletes who are deaf but also with their counterparts who hear (Stewart, 1991). Competition with skilled athletes who can hear is seen as a means of improving sport skills and competitiveness (Stewart, McCarthy, & Robinson, 1988; Stewart, Robinson, & McCarthy, 1991). Thus, where feasible, physical educators should seek to expand the opportunities for their students who are deaf to interact in games and sports with peers who can hear.

These i-esults lend support to Butterfield's (1991) contention that delays in motor development among children who are deaf are more likely to be caused by environmental factors such as the quality and quantity of instruction than by fac- tors associated with deafness. Given appropriate instruction and opportunities for practice, children who are deaf should acquire fundamental motor skills in the same sequence and at approximately the same rate as children who can hear. Fur- thermore, it is appropriate to compare the performances of children who are deaf on fundamental motor skills to the norms of children who can hear on tests such as the TGMD. Deafness is primarily a disability of communication rather than a dis- ability of motor skill performance.

Dummer, Haubenstricker, and Stewart

References Butterfield, S.A. (1986). Gross motor profiles of deaf children. Perceptual and Motor Skills,

62, 68-70. Butterfield, S.A. (1987). The influence of age, sex, hearing loss, etiology, and balance abil-

ity on the fundamental motor skills of deaf children. In M.E. Benidge & G. R. Ward (Eds.), International perspectives on adapted physical activity (pp. 43-51). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

ButterF~eld, S.A. (1989). Influence of age, sex, hearing loss and balance on the develop- ment of throwing by deaf children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 448-450.

Butterfield, S.A. (1991). Influence of age, sex, hearing loss, and balance on development of running by deaf children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73,624-626.

Butterfield, S.A., & Ersing, W.F. (1987a). Age, sex, hearing loss, and balance in develop- ment of jumping by deaf children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 942.

Butterfield, S.A., & Ersing, W.F. (1987b). Influence of age, sex, hearing loss, and balance on kicking development by deaf children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 65, 312.

Butterfield, S.A., & Ersing, W.F. (1988). Influence of age, sex, hearing loss, and balance on development of catching by deaf children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66,997-998.

Butterfield, S.A., van der Mars, H., & Chase, J. (1991, July). A comparison of deaf and hearing children ages 3-8 on the Scale of Intra Gross Motor Assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Consortium on Physical Education and Recreation for the Handicapped, Arlington, VA.

Geddes, D. (1978). Motor development profiles of preschool deaf and hard-of-hearing chil- dren. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 291-294.

Goodman, J., & Hopper, C. (1992). Hearing impaired children and youth: A review of psychomotor behavior. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 9, 214-236.

Haubenstricker, J.L., & Seefeldt, V. (1986). Acquisition of motor skills during childhood. In V. Seefeldt (Ed.), Physical activity and well-being (pp. 41-102). Reston, VA: Na- tional Association for Sport and Physical Education and the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.

Loovis, E.M., & Ersing, W.F. (1979). Assessing and programming gross motor develop- ment for children (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: College Town Press.

Stewart, D.A. (1991). Deaf sport: The impact of sports within the Deaf community. Wash- ington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Stewart, D.A., Durnmer, G.M., & Haubenstricker, J.L. (1990). Review of administration procedures used to assess the motor skills of deaf children and youth. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 7, 23 1-239.

Stewart, D.A., McCarthy, D., &Robinson, J. (1988). Participation in deaf sport: Character- istics of deaf sport directors. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 5, 233-244.

Stewart, D.A., Robinson, J., & McCarthy, D. (1991). Participation in deaf sport: Character- istics of deaf athletes. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 8, 136-145.

Stewart, D.A., & Stinson, M.S. (1992). The role of sport and extracurricular activities in shaping socialization patterns. In T.N. Kluwin, D.F. Moores, & M.G. Gaustad (Eds.), Toward eflectivepublic schoolprograms for deaf students (pp. 129-148). New York: Teachers College.

Ulrich, D.A. (1985). Test of gross motor development. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by an All-University Research Initiation Grant from

Michigan State University to the authors.