Assessment of manual dexterity using the grooved pegboard test in secondary school students aged 11–12 years

2Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background and Study Aim Material and Methods Results Conclusions Understanding and addressing potential variations in hand dexterity among children is essential for educational strategies and interventions aimed at enhancing fine motor skills development in this age group. The study’s objective was to assess hand dexterity levels among 11-12 years old secondary school students, considering variables such as gender, grade, and hand preference. Ninety-three students (41 females and 52 males) in grades 5 and 6 of the secondary school. The Grooved Pegboard Test (GPT) (Lafayette Model 32025) was used as a data collection tool to determine the students’ performance in hand dexterity (fine motor skills). The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to test for differences between gender, grade, and hand preference in the mean GPT scores. Results showed that both female and male 6th graders had better GPT performance in both dominant and non-dominant hands than 5th graders. On the other hand, there were no significant grade differences in GPT performance between dominant and non-dominant hands (p>0.05). There was no difference in GPT performance between 5th and 6th grade (p>0.05). There were no statistical differences between females and males in GPT performance in either the dominant or non-dominant hand (p>0.05). Results highlight the importance of considering age-related changes in fine motor skills when developing educational strategies and interventions for children in the 11-12 year age group. Further research may be needed to explore the underlying factors contributing to these variations in hand dexterity.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bozkurt, S. (2023). Assessment of manual dexterity using the grooved pegboard test in secondary school students aged 11–12 years. Pedagogy of Physical Culture and Sports, 27(5), 396–401. https://doi.org/10.15561/26649837.2023.0506

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free