{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.06346749226006192, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02631578947368421, 'mean_word_length': 4.798206278026906, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Fundamental motor skills: A systematic review of terminology

ABSTRACT The three aims of this systematic review are to describe: (1) use of the term fundamental motor/movement skills (FMS) in published articles; (2) the quality of definitions; and (3) relative use of process- and product- oriented assessments to measure FMS. The inclusion criteria included: (a) peer-reviewed article, (b) printed in English, (c) published between January 2000 and 31 December 2015, (d) presence of either the term “fundamental motor or movement skill” in the title and/or abstract, and (e) FMS were a measured outcome. There has been an increase in the number of publications on FMS in recent years, with the majority of studies conducted in Australia (n = 41, 33%). Approximately 24% of studies (n = 30) did not provide any explicit definition of FMS. A majority of studies reported the use of process-oriented measures (n = 98, 79%) compared to product-oriented measures (n = 23, 19%), and few studies used both (n = 6, 5%). We recommend that researchers provide: (1) an operational definition of FMS that states FMS are the “building blocks” (or similar terminology) of more advanced, complex movements; (2) specific categories of skills that compose FMS; and (3) at least one specific example of a FMS.