This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham] On: 13 November 2014, At: 17:48 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
Children's One-Hand Catching as a Function of Age, Gender, and Ball Location a
a
Mark G. Fischman , Jane B. Moore & Kenneth H. Steele
a
a
Department of Health and Human Performance , Auburn University , Auburn , AL , USA Published online: 26 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Mark G. Fischman , Jane B. Moore & Kenneth H. Steele (1992) Children's One-Hand Catching as a Function of Age, Gender, and Ball Location, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63:4, 349-355, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1992.10608755 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1992.10608755
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
R. . .rcb QUl1llrly for Exlrcl.. andSport
e 1992 bytheAmerican Alliance for Health. Physical Education. Recreation and Dance
Vol. 63. No. 4. pp. 349-355
Children's One-Hand Catching as a Function of Age, Gender, and Ball Location
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:48 13 November 2014
MarkG. Fischman, Jane B. Moore, andKenneth H. Steele A sizable body ofliterature exists on the product characteristics and developmental sequencefor tw~hand catching, but to date there is no description ofthe developmental characteristics of simpleom-hand catching in young children. This study investigated the influence of age, gender, and hall location on children's om-hand catching. Boys and girls (N = 240) ranging in agefrom 5 to 12 yearsauempted to catcha total of 24 tennis balls, tossed from a 9-fl distance. Tosses were directed tofour locations: (a) WAIST, (b) SHouLDER, (c) ABOVE-THE-HEAD, and (d) Our-TD-THE-SIDE. Descriptive data consisted ofthe percentage ofsucassful catches at each ball location, and the ha~rm orientationselected by the child as a function of hall location. &suUs revealed that catchingperformance improvedwith age, boys caught more ballsthan girls, ball location influenced catching success, and, in general, the location ofthe toss constrained the child's selection ofan appropriate ha~rm orientation. With the possible exception ofthe SHOULDER. location for girls, even very young children aresensitiveto the perceptual aspects ofthe tossand respond with an appropriate orientation.
Key words: catching, age effects, gender differences, ball location
T
h e primary purpose of this study is to begin to describe the development ofsimple one-hand catching in young children. Casual observation tells us that humans acquire the capability for skillful performance of one-hand catching, yetno one has undertaken systematic study of when this skill is acquired or what factors influence its performance. The early development ofinterception skills is documented in a series of studies by Hofsten (1980, 1983; Hofsten & Lindhagen, 1979). Infants 4 months of age successfully intercepted a stationary object and could also anticipate the future location ofa moving object and make an interception. These studies presented landmark findings because 4 months is now considered the age at which an infant can reliably track a moving object and move an arm to intercept that object. With the exception of Hofsten's work on infants reaching for moving objects (see Hofsten, 1987, for a review), the vast majority of studies on children's catching behavior has been limited to the two-hand variety. Even though the fundamental skill of catching is included in all movement programs for children, activities
Submitted: October 11, 1991 Revision accepted: June t 1992 Mark G. Fischman is an associate professor, JaneB. Moore is a professor, andKenneth H. Steeleis a doctoral student inthe Department of Health andHuman Performance atAuburn University, Auburn, AL
ROES: December 1992
in these programs are designed to develop the skill oftwohanded catching. Considerable research has been devoted to the stage analysis of two-hand catching. Wellman (1937) identified three levels ofdevelopment in the two-hand catching pattern. Children at 3~ years hold their arms stiff and straight at the elbows and in front of the body; children at 4 years open their hands to receive the object even though the arms remain stiff; at five the child assumes a more relaxed position, with arms bentat the elbow, hands ready to receive the object. Cratty (1979) and Espenschade and Eckert (1980) both describe similar stages in the mature form of two-hand catching. It has been generally concluded that there are at least three distinct stages in catching, and in recent years a precise five-stage sequence (total body approach) reported by Haubenstricker, Branta, and Seefeldt (1983) is generally accepted. Extensive attention has been devoted to the study of one-hand catching, but this work has largely been limited to adult subjects, both skilled and unskilled. Based on the research ofWhiting and his colleagues in the 1970s (see Whiting, Savelsbergh, & Faber, 1988, for a review), we have builta sizable database regarding the importance of viewing the ball in simple one-hand catching. More recent work on visual and proprioceptive control in onehand catching has provided important information regarding the necessity of viewing the hand (Diggles, Grabiner, & Garhammer, 1987; Fischman & Schneider, 1985; Smyth & Marriott, 1982) and viewing the glove (Fischman & Mucci, 1989; Fischman & Sanders, 1991). The kinds of questions investigated in these studies are important to study developmentally, but it is also important to learn more about the product and process charac-
349
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:48 13 November 2014
Fischman, Moore,and Steele
teristics ofone-hand catching in children (a good model is Strohmeyer, Williams, and Schaub-George's 1991 research on two-hand catching). To date, among published literature systematic studies of one-hand catching in children are conspicuously absent. As the child develops the skill of one-hand catching, it may take the same general form as two-hand catching in terms of the visual tracking of the ball, the gross and fine adjustments of the arm and hand to intercept the ball, and the final timing of a grasping component to secure the ball. Yet because of the unilateral nature of one-hand catching, certain factors may differentiate its course of development from that of twohand catching. A long-range goal in the study of onehand catching is to establish the developmental sequence of this fundamental skill and to analyze the movements for use in teaching proper form. An important first step in this process, and an objective ofthis study, is to address the following three questions about simple one-hand catching in young children. First, what are the developmental or age-related trends in performance? At what age do children begin to exhibit the rudiments ofskill in one-hand catching, and by what age have they essentially mastered the skill? Second, are there gender differences associated with simple one-hand catching? The literature suggests that for two-hand catching there appears to be about a one-year performance differential between the sexes, with girls tending to lag behind boys (Haubenstricker et al., 1983; McConnell & Wade, 1990). Finally, how does the spatial location ofa tossed ball, as well as the hand orientation selected by the child, influence catching success? Recent work on two-hand catching by Strohmeyer etal. (1991) suggested that ball location can affect the developmental pattern used bya child, and research by McConnell and Wade (1990) showed that children found it easiest to catch a rolling ball when it was 1 ft off-center but most difficult to catch when it was 2-feet off-center. Catching in general, and one-hand catching in particular, is a difficult skill to study developmentally because, as Roberton (1984) and Wickstrom (1983) have pointed out, so many environmental variables influence its performance. In actual games and sports, people often have to respond to objects that move at different speeds, over different distances and directions, and projected by various methods and to other important factors. Often, the catcher must adjust his or her total body position prior to making the catch. Because the present study represents the first attempt, to our knowledge, to examine one-hand catching in young children, a reasonable approach would be to control as many environmental constraints as possible and simply focus on the influence of ball location. Regardless of the wealth of environmental variables that influence one-hand catching performance, success ultimately depends, in large part, on properly orienting the arm and hand to the ball's location.
350
Method Subjects This investigation involved 240 children, ranging in age, as of their last birthday, from 5 to 12 years (120 boys and 120 girls). Within each of the eight age groups, 15 boys and 15 girls were observed. The children were volunteers from public schools and recreation programs located in Auburn and Opelika, Alabama. The children participated in this study as part of their regular physical education class or recreation program, and all procedures were approved by Auburn University's Institutional Review Board for the Use of Human Subjects.
Data Collection Procedures The children were asked to use their preferred hand to catch a total of24 tennis balls, tossed underhand by an experimenter, from a distance of9 ft. Hand preference was ascertained by asking the children to show which hand they used for brushing their teeth. Of the 240 children, 208 used their right hand and 32 used their left hand. Previous research with adult subjects found no between-hand differences in catching performance, both for skilled catchers and unskilled catchers (Fischman & Schneider, 1985). The 90ft distance was selected because pilot work indicated that this distance could be used to adequately discriminate between the youngest and oldest children, while proving neither too difficult and frustrating for our 5-year-olds nor too easy for our 12-year-olds. Furthermore, a subject sample was desired that could successfully catch with two hands, especially in the younger age groups, and our pilotworkshowed that a 90ftdistance did produce successful two-hand catching. Four different locations were designated as the targets for the tosses: (a) WAlSfheight, (b) SHOULDER.height, (c) ABOVE-TIlE-HEAD, and (d) Our-TO-TIlE-SIDE, at about waist height. For the first three locations, an attempt was made to place the toss approximately even with the catching arm. For the fourth location, the ball was tossed so that the subjects had to reach out to the side for it but could do so without changing their body position. All balls were tossed at a moderate pace. For the WAlSf and OUT-TO-TIlE-SIDE locations, tosses were made with a slight arc so that the ball was moving downward when the catch was completed. For the SHOULDER. and ABoVE-TIlE-HEAD locations, tosses were made so that the ball was still rising when the catch was completed. These trajectories were adjusted slightly to accommodate the subject's height. The four ball locations allowed us to identify three distinct hand positions, based on the orientation of the thumb and palm, that were considered to be the appropriate mode of control, that is, the mode that a skilled catcher would select. For example, when the ball arrives
ROES: December 1992
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:48 13 November 2014
Rschman, Moore, andSteele
at the WAIfrr, the proper orientation would be one in which the hand is supinated, with the thumb "out"/palm up. At the SHOULDER and ABOVE-lHE-HEAD locations, the proper orientation would be one in which the fingers point upward, with the thumb "in"/palm forward. Finally, when the toss is OUT-TO-lHE-SIDE, the fingers should point sideward, with the thumb "up"/palm forward. These hand orientations should be emergent properties of the constraints placed on the catcher by the different ball locations. Of special interest is whether there are developmental differences in the sensitivity to these environmental constraints. The children were tested individually. Each child was positioned 9 ft from the ball tosser and stood in a relaxed manner with the catching hand resting by the side prior to release of the toss. A second experimenter stood behind and toward the side of the child's catching hand and was responsible for recording the outcome of each attempt and for informing the tosser as to the location of the upcoming toss. This verbal information was given in the form of a "number" to prevent the children from anticipating the ball's location. Three individuals served as ball tossers during the study, and they received extensive practice during pilot work at tossing accurately and consistently to the four locations. Only one person served as the observer-recorder throughout the study. During pilot work this individual was thoroughly trained in the observational skills necessary to determine ball location, hand position, and catching accuracy. Prior to beginning the one-hand trials, each child was given the opportunity to catch four tosses with two hands. The child then attempted six one-hand catches at each ball location, with the order oflocation randomized across the 24 trials. The tosser and the recorder monitored the tosses for acceptability. Poor tosses were repeated when both the tosser and the recorderjudged the toss to be unacceptable. The main reasons for repeating a toss included (a) tossing to the wrong location (i.e., to a location different from the one called for by the recorder), and (b) tossing a ball clearly out of the child's reach. For each trial, the hand orientation chosen by the child was recorded, as well as whether the ball was (a) cleanly caught, or (b) missed, butwith hand contact. The recorder also noted whether the ball was (c) missed with no contact, or (d) bobbled and then trapped against the body, but did not record the hand orientation for these two categories.
Treatment of Data
location factor. Significant effects were further analyzed with Tukey's WSD follow-up procedure. To guard against bias resulting from violations of the sphericity assumption, conservative Greenhouse-Geisser tests were performed on any significant repeated measures effects (Glass & Stanley, 1970). All statistical tests were conducted at an alpha level of.05. For this analysis, balls that were bobbled and then trapped against the body were treated as misses. For each Gender x Age x Ball Location, we also tabulated the number ofhand orientations chosen by the children, both for catches and for misses. These data are presented for descriptive purposes, but no formal analyses were conducted on them.
Results Less than 1% ofthe trials had to be repeated because of an unacceptable toss. On 213 of the total number of trials (5,760 combined across all ages and both sexes), the child contacted the ball with some part ofthe hand or arm but then completed the catch by trapping the ball against his or her body. These trialswere scored as misses. Use of this type of strategy was about equally distributed between boys and girls.
Gender, Age, andBallLocation Effects Figure 1 presents the percentage ofsuccessful catches, regardless of ball location, as a function of age and gender. Figure 2 presents the percentage of catches made by the boys at each of the four ball locations as a function ofage; Figure 3 presents these data for the girls. The 2 x 8 x 4 (Gender x Age x Ball Location) ANOVA, with repeated measures on the last factor, revealed significant main effects for gender, F (1,224) = 24.54; age,
• •
Boys Girls
8
9
10
11
12
Age (yeers)
The percentage of successful catches at each ball location was calculated for each child. These percentages were then analyzed by a 2 x 8 x 4 (Gender x Age x Ball Location) ANOVA, with repeated measures on the ball
ROES: December 1992
Figure 1.Percentage ofsuccessful catchesas a function ofage andgender. (These data are basedona total of360 tossesfor eachage andgender grouping and do notinclude trials in which the ball was bobbled andthentrapped against the body.)
351
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:48 13 November 2014
Fischman, Moore, andSteele
F (7,224) = 52.09; and ball location, F (3,672) = 10.88, all ps < .001. The interactions of Gender x Age, F (7, 224) = 1.09; Gender x Location, F (3, 672) = 1.04; Age x Location, F (21,672) = 1.06; and Gender x Age x Location, F (21,672) = 1.37, were all nonsignificant, ps > .05. The significant effect for gender indicates that the mean percentage of successful catches for the boys (M = 67%, SD = 32.1) was greater than for the girls (M = 53%, SD= 35.5). At all ages boys caught more balls than girls, and, as Figure 1 indicates, there appears to be about a one-year performance differential between the sexes. This gap between girls and boys in one-hand catching is similar to what has been found for two-hand catching (Haubenstricker et al., 1983; McConnell & Wade, 1990). As might be expected, catching performance improved with age. The percentage ofsuccessful catches for boys ranged from 17.2% at age 5 to 95.8% at age 12. For girls, the percentage of successful catches ranged from 4.2%atage5 t092.2%atage 12. The TukeyWSDposthoc test on the significant effect for age, using all possible pairwise comparisons, indicated that the percentage of successful catches for the 5-year-olds (M = 10.7%, SD= 16.0) was less than that of all other ages. From age 6 through age 10, there were no significant differences between any two adjacent ages. There were also no significant differences in the percentage of successful catches among the three oldest age groups (10-, 11-, and 12-year-olds) . The Tukey WSD post hoc test on the significant effect for ball location revealed that significantly fewer catches were made at the WAISf location (M = 56.2%,
SD = 36.5) than at the other locations. Significantly fewer catches were also made at the Our-TO-TIlE-SIDE location (M =59.7%, SD =37.3) thanABoVE-TIlE-HEAD (M =64.0%, SD = 38.3). Finally, equal percentages of catches were made at the Our-TO-TIlE-SIDE and SHOULDER location (M = 60.8%, SD = 35.7) and at SHOULDER and ABoVE-TIlEHEAD.
Hand Orientation Selection Earlier we defined what was considered to be the appropriate hand orientations that a child should choose depending on the location of the toss. Table 1 presents the number of hand positions chosen by the boys as a function of age and ball location, and Table 2 presents these data for the girls. In the tables, the frequencies are presented both for catches and for misses. Within each combination ofAge x Ball Location, the maximum total of the six data points is 90. Any difference between 90 and the table sums represents "no-contact" errors or bobbled/ trapped balls. Hand orientations were not recorded for these trials. Formal analyses, such as chi-square, were not conducted on these hand orientation frequencies because of the extremely large number of cells having expected values ofless than 5; many cells had expected frequencies ofless than 1.0 (see Siegel & Castellan, 1988; Thomas & Nelson, 1990). However, if one examines the data in Tables 1 and 2, it becomes clear that, for the WAISf, ABOVE-TIlE-HEAD, and Otrr-ro-rns-Srnz locations, both boys and girls were selecting the appropriate hand orientation, based on our definitions, at all ages. This is true regardless of whether the ball was caught or missed.
100
100
90 80
••
70
90 • Waist !l!J Shoulder • Above-The-Head Cl Out-To-The-Side
80 :
~
2
lJ '0
70
" ~60 '0
SO
~
40
I.
~4O
c
30
1. 30
1
20
1
al
• Above-The-Head D Out-To-The-Side
~
80
•
!l c
• Waist
!l!J Shoulder
.SO al
!l
c
10
20
10
8
9
10
11
12
Age (years)
Figure 2. Percentage of successful catches made by boys asa function of balllocation. (These data are based on a total of 90 tosses to each location anddo not include trials in which the ball was bobbled and thentrapped againstthe body. Within each age group the barsare ordered, from left to right, asfollows:WAIST, SHOULOER, ABOVE-THE-HEAD, and OUT-TO-THE-SIOE.)
352
Figure 3. Percentage of successful catches made bygirls as a function of balllocation. (These data are based on a total of 90 tosses to each location and do not include trials in which the ball was bobbled and then trapped againstthe body. Withineach age group the barsare ordered, from left to right, asfollows: WAIST, SHOULDER, ABOVE-THE-HEAD, and OUT-TO-THE-SIDE.)
ROES: December 1992
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:48 13 November 2014
Rschman, Moore, andSteele
a combination of both. Additional work is needed to determine the extent of each one's contribution.
Results for the SHOULDER height location were somewhat different from those of the other three locations. When the ball was tossed at SHOULDER height, boys exhibited dominance in the appropriate hand orientation (thumb "in") by age 8, at least for balls that were caught, whereas the girls did not achieve clear dominance in the proper mode until age 11. Prior to that, they did not adjust from a palm up/thumb out position, which would be appropriate for the WAIlrf location, but instead maintained that orientation of the hand as the ball was tossed higher and simply lifted the hand straight up to contact the ball. To help interpret the data presented thus far, we also examined one other performance category that was exhibited by the children. There was a relatively high incidence of "no-contact" errors, particularly in the younger age groups. These errors are ones in which no part of the body made contactwith the ball. Outofa total of 107 "no-contacts" exhibited by the boys, 100 were made by 5-8-year-olds. For the girls, who exhibited a total of 187 "no-contacts.f l Ss occurred among the 5-8-yearolds. Failure to contact the ball may indicate poor spatial organization, poor temporal organization, or, most likely,
Discussion Becauseofthedearthofliteratureonyoungchildren's one-hand catching performance, we decided to begin this investigation by describing the influence of three factors: age, gender, and ball location. We found obvious and expected improvements in performance associated with age and suggest that, within the constraints of the present task, 5-year-olds have begun to exhibit the rudiments of skill in one-hand catching, although their performance in terms ofsuccessful catches was slightly better than chance; by age 12, the skill is essentially mastered. Differences associated with gender were found that are similar to previous findings for two-hand catching (Haubenstrickeretal., 1983; McConnell & Wade,1990). Although no information was gathered regarding the history ofsport/physical activity involvement of our subjects, it is reasonable to assume that there are cultural differences in exposure ofyoung children to ball games
Tablet Number of hand orientations chosen by boys as a function of age andball location Age
Out
WAIST In
Up
Out
SHOULDER In
Up
Out
5 6
8 (38) 32 (23) 21 (21) 41 (8) 33 (20) 40 (8) 67 (2) 68 (1)
4 (23) 3(11) 8 (8) 12 (11) 21 (7) 32 (3) 8 (1) 14 (0)
0(7) 2 (3) 12 (5) 4(1) 5 (0) 6 (0) 8 (0) 3 (0)
3 (21) 25 (20) 22 (9) 18 (5) 23(7) 22 (3) 18 (3) 10(0)
13 (38) 18 (11) 14 (22) 39 (11) 36 (4) 42 (4) 37 (2) 77 (2)
2 (4) 7 (4) 8 (3) 6 (2) 12 (0) 11 (1) 29 (0) 1(0)
3 (7) 2 (8) 2 (4) 1 (4) 2 (2) 4 (1) 0(0) 0(0)
7
8 9 10
11 12
ABOVE-THE-HEAD In Up 16 (43) 42 (26) 52 (23) 68 (13) 69 (11) 79 (3) 85 (3) 84 (5)
1 (0) 0(1) 0(0) 0(0) 2 (1) 0(0) 2 (0) 1 (0)
Out 1 (3) 0(1) 1 (2) 3 (0) 4 (3) 5 (0) 0(0) 0(0)
OUToTO-THE-SIDE In Up 1(9) 1 (4) 3 (3) 12 (2) 11 (0) 17 (2) 7 (2) 4 (0)
10 (44) 40 (40) 38 (37) 50 (21) 47 (20) 57 (7) 74 (6) 83 (3)
Note. Foreach hand orientation, the first number represents ballsthat were successfully caught The number in parentheses represents ballsthat were missed. These data do not include trials in whichthe ballwas bobbled andtrapped against the body or trials in which no contactat all was made with the ball. Table 2. Number of hand orientations chosen by girls as a function of age andballlocation Age
Out
WAIST In
Up
Out
SHOULDER In
Up
5 6
1 (47) 8 (40) 20 (31) 40 (25) 36 (18) 56 (12) 53 (14) 66 (9)
3 (20) 1 (9) 13 (8) 1 (5) 6 (4) 3 (7) 6 (1) 5 (0)
0(5) 6 (17) 3 (6) 4 (5) 10 (1) 5 (2) 2 (1) 8 (1)
0(10) 8 (32) 18(21) 26 (12) 21 (12) 31 (7) 16 (8) 14 (1)
2 (35) 6 (13) 19 (23) 12 (5) 16 (13) 25 (5) 34 (6) 44 (4)
0(5) 9 (15) 1 (3) 12 (10) 11 (3) 13 (5) 19 (2) 23 (2)
7
8 9 10
11 12
Out
ABOVE-THE-HEAD In Up
0(10) 0(12) 2 (5) 3 (15) 1 (1) 2 (0) 0(0) 0(0)
4 (47) 17 (33) 41 (18) 40 (16) 56 (21) 70 (12) 80 (9) 86 (2)
0(1) 0(3) 2 (0) 0(4) 1 (2) 1 (3) 0(0) 1 (0)
Out 0(6) 0(5) 2 (5) 4 (3) 2 (4) o (1) 2 (0) 0(0)
OUT-ro-THE-SIDE In Up 0(9) 1(2) 11 (2) 0(0) 5 (1) 3 (2) 6 (0) 2 (0)
3 (48) 12 (63) 37 (25) 46 (33) 50 (20) 59 (24) 62 (20) 83 (5)
Note. Foreach hand orientation. the first number represents balls that were successfully caught The number in parentheses represents ballsthat were missed. These datado notincludetrials in whichthe ballwas bobbled andtrapped againstthebodyortrials in which no contactat all was made with the ball. .
ROES: December 1992
353
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:48 13 November 2014
Fischman, Moore, andSteele
and sports. Therefore, a logical speculation is that the gender differences found in one-hand catching may be attributed, in part, to the greater involvement by young boys in sports such as baseball and softball. As Wickstrom (1983) suggests, in these sports the use ofaglove gives an enormous boost to the catching skills ofboys and encourages the earlier development of one-handed catching. Recent work by Fischman and his colleagues using adult subjects has shown that experience with baseball and softball substantially changes the nature of the act of catching and also provides an advantage for barehand catching (Fischman 8cMucci, 1989; Fischman 8c Sanders, 1991; Fischman 8c Schneider, 1985). The fact that none of the present interactions involving age and gender were significant implies that the differences between boys and girls were similar at all ages. Boys' experience with ball games and sports may simply impart some general advantage in one-hand catching. A great deal of catching in baseball and softball involves balls that are rolling on the ground as well as balls that are airborne. An important topic for further study would be the relationship between gloved catching and barehand catching in children. Ball location appears to be an importantfactor in the catching performance of young children, although the effect was similar at all ages and for both sexes, because, once again, none of the interactions were significant Tosses that were farthest from the trunk region (e.g., ABOVE-TIlE-HEAD and Our-To-TIlE-SIDE) were much more definitive in forcing the use of an appropriate hand orientation than tosses that were closer to the body (e.g., SHOULDER). These findings are similar to those of Strohmeyer et al. (1991), who reported location effects in children's two-hand catching. They found that tosses directed at the torso elicited more advanced developmental patterns ofmovement for younger children (5-6 years old), but older children (11-12 years old) sometimes used less developmentally advanced patterns at this location. The older children, however, used more advanced patterns to catch balls thrown slightly above the head or to the side of the body. Strohmeyer etal. (1991) speculated that more "challenging" locations forced the children to use more advanced catching patterns, whereas the less challenging torso location allowed the older children more freedom to experiment with their responses. These findings illustrate the importance of environmental constraints on the shape ofaction patterns (e.g., Kelso 8cSchoner, 1988). Unfortunately, Strohmeyer et al. (1991) did not report any data on the number of successful catches made by their subjects at the various targetlocations (i.e., "product"variables, Roberton, 1984), so not enough information is available to evaluate the relationship between the action pattern chosen and the success of the catch. McConnell and Wade (1990) also found that kindergarteners and first-graders had more difficulty
354
catching a rolling ball coming directly at the center ofthe body than one coming slightly off-center in either direction. In the present study, subjects caught fewer balls at the WAIfJf location than the other locations but did not appear to have difficulty selecting the appropriate hand orientation at this location. Clearly, the effect of ball location on one-hand catching performance is worthy of further study. Based on our definitions of the appropriate mode of control for each ball location, we found that, with the exception ofthe SHOULDER location for girls under age 11, subjects were choosing the appropriate hand orientation at all ages. These findings are important because they indicate that even very young children are able to integrate at least part ofthe correct motor response (i.e., the positioning phase) with the perceptual aspects of the moving ball. However, as might be expected, based on the difficulty even highly skilled catchers experience with timing the grasping phase of one-hand catching (Fischman 8c Mucci, 1989; Fischman 8cSchneider, 1985), this phase would prove very difficult for young children. Alderson (1974) also reported results that are consistent with our findings. He filmed 15 boys (ages 7, 10, and 13) making a one-handed catch ofa ball thrown from a machine and noted that even the 7-year-olds were able to position their hand in place to catch (77% "contacts"), with 61% of the trials being within 1 in. of the optimum contact area. Alderson also analyzed the finger flexion movements and found that each age group had the same flexion time but that the 7-year-olds started their flexion 10-15 ms later than the older boys did. Thus, the problem for the younger boys may not have been so much one of correctly evaluating the environmental conditions but, rather, of adjusting their motor responses to these conditions (Keogh 8cSugden, 1985). The hand orientation data from the present study also illustrate another point. That is, even though a child selects the correct hand orientation based on the location of the toss, the ball may not necessarily be caught. This is particularly true for the youngest age groups, where very few catches were successful. Conversely, the older children may, at times, select an inappropriate hand orientation but still realize a positive outcome. For example, for the 11- and 12-year-old boys, a combined total of 34 inappropriate orientations were selected for tosses at the WAIfJf, yet 33 of these (97%) resulted in successful catches. These observations relate nicely to those of Strohmeyer et al. (1991), who indicated that some of their older subjects may have "played" with the way they responded when tosses were to less challenging locations. As children get older and become more skillful, they have more freedom to experiment with their responses, especially when the task is relatively simple. This study is the first attempt at systematic study of one-hand catching in children. In general we found that the location ofthe toss constrains the child's selection of
ROES: December 1992
Fischman, Moore. andSteele
an appropriate hand-ann orientation and that even very young children are sensitive enough to the perceptual aspects of the toss so that they can at least position their hand in the ball's line offlight. Further research should be devoted to a more fine-grained analysis of the positioningand grasping phases in children's one-hand catching, as well as to documenting the developmental sequence of this skill. This research is currently underway in our laboratory.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:48 13 November 2014
References Alderson,IG. j. K (1974). The develofrmenJ of motion pndiction ability in the context of sports slcills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds, England. Cratty, B.j. (1979). Perceptualand motordevelofrmenJ in infants and childrm (2nd 00.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Diggles, V. A., Grabiner, M. D., Be Garhammer,j. (1987). Skill level and efficacy of effector visual feedback in ball catching. Perceptual and MotorS1cills, 64, 987-993. Espenschade, A S., Be Eckert, H. M. (1980). MotordevelofrmenJ (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Fischman, M. G., Be Mucci, W. G. (1989). Influence ofa baseball glove on the nature oferrors produced in simple one-hand catching. Research QJuzrterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 251255. Fischman, M. G., Be Sanders, R. (1991). An empirical note on the bilateral use of a baseball glove by skilled catchers. Perceptual and MotorS1cills, 72, 219-223. Fischman, M. G., Be Schneider, T. (1985). Skill level, vision, and proprioception in simple one-hand catching. Journal of MotorBehavior, it. 219-229. Glass, G. V, BeStanley,j. C. (1970). Statisticalmethods in education and psychology. Englewood Cliffs, Nj: Prentice-Hall. Haubenstricker, j., Branta, C., Be Seefeldt, V. (1983, May). Preliminary validation of developmental sequ.enas for throwing and catching. Paper presented at the annual conference of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, East Lansing, MI. Hofsten, C. von. (1980). Predictive reaching for moving objects by human infants. Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology, 30, 369-382. Hofsten, C. von. (1983). Catching skills in infancy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9,75-85.
RDES: December 1992
Hofsten, c. von. (1987). Catching. In H. Heuer BeA.F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp, 33-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hofsten, C. von, Be Lindhagen, K. (1979). Observations on the development of reaching for moving objects. Journal of ExperimentalChildPsychology, 28, 158-173. Kelso, j. A. S., Be Schaner, G. (1988). Self-organization of coordinative movementpatterns. HumanMuvnnmt&imce, 7.27-46. Keogh,j., Be Sugden, D. (1985). Muvnnmt slcill development. New York: Macmillan. McConnell, A., Be Wade, G. (1990). Effects of lateral ball location, grade, and sex on catching. Perceptual and Motor S1cills, 70, 59-66. Roberton, M. A (1984). Changing motor patterns during childhood. Inj. R. Thomas (Ed.), MotordevelofrmenJ during childhood and adolescence (pp. 48-90). Minneapolis: Burgess. Siegel,S., Be Castellan, N.j.,jr. (1988). Nonparametricstatisticsfor the behavioral scimces(2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill. Smyth, M. M., Be Marriott, A. M. (1982). Vision and proprioception in simple catching. Journal ofMotorBehavior, 14, 143152. Strohmeyer, H. S., Williams, K., Be Schaub-George, D. (1991). Developmental sequences for catching a small ball: A prelongitudinal screening. Research Q!umerly for Exercise and Sport. 62, 257-266. Thomas,j. R., Be Nelson,j. K. (1990). Research methods in physical activity (2nd ed.), Champaign, II.: Human Kinetics. Wellman, B. L. (1937). Motor achievements of preschool children. ChildhoodEducation. 1).311-316. Whiting, H. T. A., Savelsbergh, G.j. P., Be Faber, C. M. (1988). "Catch" questions and incomplete answers. In A. M.Colley Bej. R. Beech (Eds.) , Cognition and actionin slcilled behaviour (pp. 257-271). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Wickstrom, R. L (1983). Fundamental motorpatt#/ms (3rd ed.), Philadelphia: Lea Be Febiger.
Authors" Notes We thank Beverly Boling and Elizabeth Gregory for assistance with collecting the data and Robert Malina, Kathleen Haywood, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. Address all reprint requests to Mark G. Fischman, Department of Health and Human Performance, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849.
355
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
Children's One-Hand Catching as a Function of Age, Gender, and Ball Location a
a
Mark G. Fischman , Jane B. Moore & Kenneth H. Steele
a
a
Department of Health and Human Performance , Auburn University , Auburn , AL , USA Published online: 26 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Mark G. Fischman , Jane B. Moore & Kenneth H. Steele (1992) Children's One-Hand Catching as a Function of Age, Gender, and Ball Location, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63:4, 349-355, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1992.10608755 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1992.10608755
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
R. . .rcb QUl1llrly for Exlrcl.. andSport
e 1992 bytheAmerican Alliance for Health. Physical Education. Recreation and Dance
Vol. 63. No. 4. pp. 349-355
Children's One-Hand Catching as a Function of Age, Gender, and Ball Location
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:48 13 November 2014
MarkG. Fischman, Jane B. Moore, andKenneth H. Steele A sizable body ofliterature exists on the product characteristics and developmental sequencefor tw~hand catching, but to date there is no description ofthe developmental characteristics of simpleom-hand catching in young children. This study investigated the influence of age, gender, and hall location on children's om-hand catching. Boys and girls (N = 240) ranging in agefrom 5 to 12 yearsauempted to catcha total of 24 tennis balls, tossed from a 9-fl distance. Tosses were directed tofour locations: (a) WAIST, (b) SHouLDER, (c) ABOVE-THE-HEAD, and (d) Our-TD-THE-SIDE. Descriptive data consisted ofthe percentage ofsucassful catches at each ball location, and the ha~rm orientationselected by the child as a function of hall location. &suUs revealed that catchingperformance improvedwith age, boys caught more ballsthan girls, ball location influenced catching success, and, in general, the location ofthe toss constrained the child's selection ofan appropriate ha~rm orientation. With the possible exception ofthe SHOULDER. location for girls, even very young children aresensitiveto the perceptual aspects ofthe tossand respond with an appropriate orientation.
Key words: catching, age effects, gender differences, ball location
T
h e primary purpose of this study is to begin to describe the development ofsimple one-hand catching in young children. Casual observation tells us that humans acquire the capability for skillful performance of one-hand catching, yetno one has undertaken systematic study of when this skill is acquired or what factors influence its performance. The early development ofinterception skills is documented in a series of studies by Hofsten (1980, 1983; Hofsten & Lindhagen, 1979). Infants 4 months of age successfully intercepted a stationary object and could also anticipate the future location ofa moving object and make an interception. These studies presented landmark findings because 4 months is now considered the age at which an infant can reliably track a moving object and move an arm to intercept that object. With the exception of Hofsten's work on infants reaching for moving objects (see Hofsten, 1987, for a review), the vast majority of studies on children's catching behavior has been limited to the two-hand variety. Even though the fundamental skill of catching is included in all movement programs for children, activities
Submitted: October 11, 1991 Revision accepted: June t 1992 Mark G. Fischman is an associate professor, JaneB. Moore is a professor, andKenneth H. Steeleis a doctoral student inthe Department of Health andHuman Performance atAuburn University, Auburn, AL
ROES: December 1992
in these programs are designed to develop the skill oftwohanded catching. Considerable research has been devoted to the stage analysis of two-hand catching. Wellman (1937) identified three levels ofdevelopment in the two-hand catching pattern. Children at 3~ years hold their arms stiff and straight at the elbows and in front of the body; children at 4 years open their hands to receive the object even though the arms remain stiff; at five the child assumes a more relaxed position, with arms bentat the elbow, hands ready to receive the object. Cratty (1979) and Espenschade and Eckert (1980) both describe similar stages in the mature form of two-hand catching. It has been generally concluded that there are at least three distinct stages in catching, and in recent years a precise five-stage sequence (total body approach) reported by Haubenstricker, Branta, and Seefeldt (1983) is generally accepted. Extensive attention has been devoted to the study of one-hand catching, but this work has largely been limited to adult subjects, both skilled and unskilled. Based on the research ofWhiting and his colleagues in the 1970s (see Whiting, Savelsbergh, & Faber, 1988, for a review), we have builta sizable database regarding the importance of viewing the ball in simple one-hand catching. More recent work on visual and proprioceptive control in onehand catching has provided important information regarding the necessity of viewing the hand (Diggles, Grabiner, & Garhammer, 1987; Fischman & Schneider, 1985; Smyth & Marriott, 1982) and viewing the glove (Fischman & Mucci, 1989; Fischman & Sanders, 1991). The kinds of questions investigated in these studies are important to study developmentally, but it is also important to learn more about the product and process charac-
349
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:48 13 November 2014
Fischman, Moore,and Steele
teristics ofone-hand catching in children (a good model is Strohmeyer, Williams, and Schaub-George's 1991 research on two-hand catching). To date, among published literature systematic studies of one-hand catching in children are conspicuously absent. As the child develops the skill of one-hand catching, it may take the same general form as two-hand catching in terms of the visual tracking of the ball, the gross and fine adjustments of the arm and hand to intercept the ball, and the final timing of a grasping component to secure the ball. Yet because of the unilateral nature of one-hand catching, certain factors may differentiate its course of development from that of twohand catching. A long-range goal in the study of onehand catching is to establish the developmental sequence of this fundamental skill and to analyze the movements for use in teaching proper form. An important first step in this process, and an objective ofthis study, is to address the following three questions about simple one-hand catching in young children. First, what are the developmental or age-related trends in performance? At what age do children begin to exhibit the rudiments ofskill in one-hand catching, and by what age have they essentially mastered the skill? Second, are there gender differences associated with simple one-hand catching? The literature suggests that for two-hand catching there appears to be about a one-year performance differential between the sexes, with girls tending to lag behind boys (Haubenstricker et al., 1983; McConnell & Wade, 1990). Finally, how does the spatial location ofa tossed ball, as well as the hand orientation selected by the child, influence catching success? Recent work on two-hand catching by Strohmeyer etal. (1991) suggested that ball location can affect the developmental pattern used bya child, and research by McConnell and Wade (1990) showed that children found it easiest to catch a rolling ball when it was 1 ft off-center but most difficult to catch when it was 2-feet off-center. Catching in general, and one-hand catching in particular, is a difficult skill to study developmentally because, as Roberton (1984) and Wickstrom (1983) have pointed out, so many environmental variables influence its performance. In actual games and sports, people often have to respond to objects that move at different speeds, over different distances and directions, and projected by various methods and to other important factors. Often, the catcher must adjust his or her total body position prior to making the catch. Because the present study represents the first attempt, to our knowledge, to examine one-hand catching in young children, a reasonable approach would be to control as many environmental constraints as possible and simply focus on the influence of ball location. Regardless of the wealth of environmental variables that influence one-hand catching performance, success ultimately depends, in large part, on properly orienting the arm and hand to the ball's location.
350
Method Subjects This investigation involved 240 children, ranging in age, as of their last birthday, from 5 to 12 years (120 boys and 120 girls). Within each of the eight age groups, 15 boys and 15 girls were observed. The children were volunteers from public schools and recreation programs located in Auburn and Opelika, Alabama. The children participated in this study as part of their regular physical education class or recreation program, and all procedures were approved by Auburn University's Institutional Review Board for the Use of Human Subjects.
Data Collection Procedures The children were asked to use their preferred hand to catch a total of24 tennis balls, tossed underhand by an experimenter, from a distance of9 ft. Hand preference was ascertained by asking the children to show which hand they used for brushing their teeth. Of the 240 children, 208 used their right hand and 32 used their left hand. Previous research with adult subjects found no between-hand differences in catching performance, both for skilled catchers and unskilled catchers (Fischman & Schneider, 1985). The 90ft distance was selected because pilot work indicated that this distance could be used to adequately discriminate between the youngest and oldest children, while proving neither too difficult and frustrating for our 5-year-olds nor too easy for our 12-year-olds. Furthermore, a subject sample was desired that could successfully catch with two hands, especially in the younger age groups, and our pilotworkshowed that a 90ftdistance did produce successful two-hand catching. Four different locations were designated as the targets for the tosses: (a) WAlSfheight, (b) SHOULDER.height, (c) ABOVE-TIlE-HEAD, and (d) Our-TO-TIlE-SIDE, at about waist height. For the first three locations, an attempt was made to place the toss approximately even with the catching arm. For the fourth location, the ball was tossed so that the subjects had to reach out to the side for it but could do so without changing their body position. All balls were tossed at a moderate pace. For the WAlSf and OUT-TO-TIlE-SIDE locations, tosses were made with a slight arc so that the ball was moving downward when the catch was completed. For the SHOULDER. and ABoVE-TIlE-HEAD locations, tosses were made so that the ball was still rising when the catch was completed. These trajectories were adjusted slightly to accommodate the subject's height. The four ball locations allowed us to identify three distinct hand positions, based on the orientation of the thumb and palm, that were considered to be the appropriate mode of control, that is, the mode that a skilled catcher would select. For example, when the ball arrives
ROES: December 1992
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:48 13 November 2014
Rschman, Moore, andSteele
at the WAIfrr, the proper orientation would be one in which the hand is supinated, with the thumb "out"/palm up. At the SHOULDER and ABOVE-lHE-HEAD locations, the proper orientation would be one in which the fingers point upward, with the thumb "in"/palm forward. Finally, when the toss is OUT-TO-lHE-SIDE, the fingers should point sideward, with the thumb "up"/palm forward. These hand orientations should be emergent properties of the constraints placed on the catcher by the different ball locations. Of special interest is whether there are developmental differences in the sensitivity to these environmental constraints. The children were tested individually. Each child was positioned 9 ft from the ball tosser and stood in a relaxed manner with the catching hand resting by the side prior to release of the toss. A second experimenter stood behind and toward the side of the child's catching hand and was responsible for recording the outcome of each attempt and for informing the tosser as to the location of the upcoming toss. This verbal information was given in the form of a "number" to prevent the children from anticipating the ball's location. Three individuals served as ball tossers during the study, and they received extensive practice during pilot work at tossing accurately and consistently to the four locations. Only one person served as the observer-recorder throughout the study. During pilot work this individual was thoroughly trained in the observational skills necessary to determine ball location, hand position, and catching accuracy. Prior to beginning the one-hand trials, each child was given the opportunity to catch four tosses with two hands. The child then attempted six one-hand catches at each ball location, with the order oflocation randomized across the 24 trials. The tosser and the recorder monitored the tosses for acceptability. Poor tosses were repeated when both the tosser and the recorderjudged the toss to be unacceptable. The main reasons for repeating a toss included (a) tossing to the wrong location (i.e., to a location different from the one called for by the recorder), and (b) tossing a ball clearly out of the child's reach. For each trial, the hand orientation chosen by the child was recorded, as well as whether the ball was (a) cleanly caught, or (b) missed, butwith hand contact. The recorder also noted whether the ball was (c) missed with no contact, or (d) bobbled and then trapped against the body, but did not record the hand orientation for these two categories.
Treatment of Data
location factor. Significant effects were further analyzed with Tukey's WSD follow-up procedure. To guard against bias resulting from violations of the sphericity assumption, conservative Greenhouse-Geisser tests were performed on any significant repeated measures effects (Glass & Stanley, 1970). All statistical tests were conducted at an alpha level of.05. For this analysis, balls that were bobbled and then trapped against the body were treated as misses. For each Gender x Age x Ball Location, we also tabulated the number ofhand orientations chosen by the children, both for catches and for misses. These data are presented for descriptive purposes, but no formal analyses were conducted on them.
Results Less than 1% ofthe trials had to be repeated because of an unacceptable toss. On 213 of the total number of trials (5,760 combined across all ages and both sexes), the child contacted the ball with some part ofthe hand or arm but then completed the catch by trapping the ball against his or her body. These trialswere scored as misses. Use of this type of strategy was about equally distributed between boys and girls.
Gender, Age, andBallLocation Effects Figure 1 presents the percentage ofsuccessful catches, regardless of ball location, as a function of age and gender. Figure 2 presents the percentage of catches made by the boys at each of the four ball locations as a function ofage; Figure 3 presents these data for the girls. The 2 x 8 x 4 (Gender x Age x Ball Location) ANOVA, with repeated measures on the last factor, revealed significant main effects for gender, F (1,224) = 24.54; age,
• •
Boys Girls
8
9
10
11
12
Age (yeers)
The percentage of successful catches at each ball location was calculated for each child. These percentages were then analyzed by a 2 x 8 x 4 (Gender x Age x Ball Location) ANOVA, with repeated measures on the ball
ROES: December 1992
Figure 1.Percentage ofsuccessful catchesas a function ofage andgender. (These data are basedona total of360 tossesfor eachage andgender grouping and do notinclude trials in which the ball was bobbled andthentrapped against the body.)
351
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:48 13 November 2014
Fischman, Moore, andSteele
F (7,224) = 52.09; and ball location, F (3,672) = 10.88, all ps < .001. The interactions of Gender x Age, F (7, 224) = 1.09; Gender x Location, F (3, 672) = 1.04; Age x Location, F (21,672) = 1.06; and Gender x Age x Location, F (21,672) = 1.37, were all nonsignificant, ps > .05. The significant effect for gender indicates that the mean percentage of successful catches for the boys (M = 67%, SD = 32.1) was greater than for the girls (M = 53%, SD= 35.5). At all ages boys caught more balls than girls, and, as Figure 1 indicates, there appears to be about a one-year performance differential between the sexes. This gap between girls and boys in one-hand catching is similar to what has been found for two-hand catching (Haubenstricker et al., 1983; McConnell & Wade, 1990). As might be expected, catching performance improved with age. The percentage ofsuccessful catches for boys ranged from 17.2% at age 5 to 95.8% at age 12. For girls, the percentage of successful catches ranged from 4.2%atage5 t092.2%atage 12. The TukeyWSDposthoc test on the significant effect for age, using all possible pairwise comparisons, indicated that the percentage of successful catches for the 5-year-olds (M = 10.7%, SD= 16.0) was less than that of all other ages. From age 6 through age 10, there were no significant differences between any two adjacent ages. There were also no significant differences in the percentage of successful catches among the three oldest age groups (10-, 11-, and 12-year-olds) . The Tukey WSD post hoc test on the significant effect for ball location revealed that significantly fewer catches were made at the WAISf location (M = 56.2%,
SD = 36.5) than at the other locations. Significantly fewer catches were also made at the Our-TO-TIlE-SIDE location (M =59.7%, SD =37.3) thanABoVE-TIlE-HEAD (M =64.0%, SD = 38.3). Finally, equal percentages of catches were made at the Our-TO-TIlE-SIDE and SHOULDER location (M = 60.8%, SD = 35.7) and at SHOULDER and ABoVE-TIlEHEAD.
Hand Orientation Selection Earlier we defined what was considered to be the appropriate hand orientations that a child should choose depending on the location of the toss. Table 1 presents the number of hand positions chosen by the boys as a function of age and ball location, and Table 2 presents these data for the girls. In the tables, the frequencies are presented both for catches and for misses. Within each combination ofAge x Ball Location, the maximum total of the six data points is 90. Any difference between 90 and the table sums represents "no-contact" errors or bobbled/ trapped balls. Hand orientations were not recorded for these trials. Formal analyses, such as chi-square, were not conducted on these hand orientation frequencies because of the extremely large number of cells having expected values ofless than 5; many cells had expected frequencies ofless than 1.0 (see Siegel & Castellan, 1988; Thomas & Nelson, 1990). However, if one examines the data in Tables 1 and 2, it becomes clear that, for the WAISf, ABOVE-TIlE-HEAD, and Otrr-ro-rns-Srnz locations, both boys and girls were selecting the appropriate hand orientation, based on our definitions, at all ages. This is true regardless of whether the ball was caught or missed.
100
100
90 80
••
70
90 • Waist !l!J Shoulder • Above-The-Head Cl Out-To-The-Side
80 :
~
2
lJ '0
70
" ~60 '0
SO
~
40
I.
~4O
c
30
1. 30
1
20
1
al
• Above-The-Head D Out-To-The-Side
~
80
•
!l c
• Waist
!l!J Shoulder
.SO al
!l
c
10
20
10
8
9
10
11
12
Age (years)
Figure 2. Percentage of successful catches made by boys asa function of balllocation. (These data are based on a total of 90 tosses to each location anddo not include trials in which the ball was bobbled and thentrapped againstthe body. Within each age group the barsare ordered, from left to right, asfollows:WAIST, SHOULOER, ABOVE-THE-HEAD, and OUT-TO-THE-SIOE.)
352
Figure 3. Percentage of successful catches made bygirls as a function of balllocation. (These data are based on a total of 90 tosses to each location and do not include trials in which the ball was bobbled and then trapped againstthe body. Withineach age group the barsare ordered, from left to right, asfollows: WAIST, SHOULDER, ABOVE-THE-HEAD, and OUT-TO-THE-SIDE.)
ROES: December 1992
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:48 13 November 2014
Rschman, Moore, andSteele
a combination of both. Additional work is needed to determine the extent of each one's contribution.
Results for the SHOULDER height location were somewhat different from those of the other three locations. When the ball was tossed at SHOULDER height, boys exhibited dominance in the appropriate hand orientation (thumb "in") by age 8, at least for balls that were caught, whereas the girls did not achieve clear dominance in the proper mode until age 11. Prior to that, they did not adjust from a palm up/thumb out position, which would be appropriate for the WAIlrf location, but instead maintained that orientation of the hand as the ball was tossed higher and simply lifted the hand straight up to contact the ball. To help interpret the data presented thus far, we also examined one other performance category that was exhibited by the children. There was a relatively high incidence of "no-contact" errors, particularly in the younger age groups. These errors are ones in which no part of the body made contactwith the ball. Outofa total of 107 "no-contacts" exhibited by the boys, 100 were made by 5-8-year-olds. For the girls, who exhibited a total of 187 "no-contacts.f l Ss occurred among the 5-8-yearolds. Failure to contact the ball may indicate poor spatial organization, poor temporal organization, or, most likely,
Discussion Becauseofthedearthofliteratureonyoungchildren's one-hand catching performance, we decided to begin this investigation by describing the influence of three factors: age, gender, and ball location. We found obvious and expected improvements in performance associated with age and suggest that, within the constraints of the present task, 5-year-olds have begun to exhibit the rudiments of skill in one-hand catching, although their performance in terms ofsuccessful catches was slightly better than chance; by age 12, the skill is essentially mastered. Differences associated with gender were found that are similar to previous findings for two-hand catching (Haubenstrickeretal., 1983; McConnell & Wade,1990). Although no information was gathered regarding the history ofsport/physical activity involvement of our subjects, it is reasonable to assume that there are cultural differences in exposure ofyoung children to ball games
Tablet Number of hand orientations chosen by boys as a function of age andball location Age
Out
WAIST In
Up
Out
SHOULDER In
Up
Out
5 6
8 (38) 32 (23) 21 (21) 41 (8) 33 (20) 40 (8) 67 (2) 68 (1)
4 (23) 3(11) 8 (8) 12 (11) 21 (7) 32 (3) 8 (1) 14 (0)
0(7) 2 (3) 12 (5) 4(1) 5 (0) 6 (0) 8 (0) 3 (0)
3 (21) 25 (20) 22 (9) 18 (5) 23(7) 22 (3) 18 (3) 10(0)
13 (38) 18 (11) 14 (22) 39 (11) 36 (4) 42 (4) 37 (2) 77 (2)
2 (4) 7 (4) 8 (3) 6 (2) 12 (0) 11 (1) 29 (0) 1(0)
3 (7) 2 (8) 2 (4) 1 (4) 2 (2) 4 (1) 0(0) 0(0)
7
8 9 10
11 12
ABOVE-THE-HEAD In Up 16 (43) 42 (26) 52 (23) 68 (13) 69 (11) 79 (3) 85 (3) 84 (5)
1 (0) 0(1) 0(0) 0(0) 2 (1) 0(0) 2 (0) 1 (0)
Out 1 (3) 0(1) 1 (2) 3 (0) 4 (3) 5 (0) 0(0) 0(0)
OUToTO-THE-SIDE In Up 1(9) 1 (4) 3 (3) 12 (2) 11 (0) 17 (2) 7 (2) 4 (0)
10 (44) 40 (40) 38 (37) 50 (21) 47 (20) 57 (7) 74 (6) 83 (3)
Note. Foreach hand orientation, the first number represents ballsthat were successfully caught The number in parentheses represents ballsthat were missed. These data do not include trials in whichthe ballwas bobbled andtrapped against the body or trials in which no contactat all was made with the ball. Table 2. Number of hand orientations chosen by girls as a function of age andballlocation Age
Out
WAIST In
Up
Out
SHOULDER In
Up
5 6
1 (47) 8 (40) 20 (31) 40 (25) 36 (18) 56 (12) 53 (14) 66 (9)
3 (20) 1 (9) 13 (8) 1 (5) 6 (4) 3 (7) 6 (1) 5 (0)
0(5) 6 (17) 3 (6) 4 (5) 10 (1) 5 (2) 2 (1) 8 (1)
0(10) 8 (32) 18(21) 26 (12) 21 (12) 31 (7) 16 (8) 14 (1)
2 (35) 6 (13) 19 (23) 12 (5) 16 (13) 25 (5) 34 (6) 44 (4)
0(5) 9 (15) 1 (3) 12 (10) 11 (3) 13 (5) 19 (2) 23 (2)
7
8 9 10
11 12
Out
ABOVE-THE-HEAD In Up
0(10) 0(12) 2 (5) 3 (15) 1 (1) 2 (0) 0(0) 0(0)
4 (47) 17 (33) 41 (18) 40 (16) 56 (21) 70 (12) 80 (9) 86 (2)
0(1) 0(3) 2 (0) 0(4) 1 (2) 1 (3) 0(0) 1 (0)
Out 0(6) 0(5) 2 (5) 4 (3) 2 (4) o (1) 2 (0) 0(0)
OUT-ro-THE-SIDE In Up 0(9) 1(2) 11 (2) 0(0) 5 (1) 3 (2) 6 (0) 2 (0)
3 (48) 12 (63) 37 (25) 46 (33) 50 (20) 59 (24) 62 (20) 83 (5)
Note. Foreach hand orientation. the first number represents balls that were successfully caught The number in parentheses represents ballsthat were missed. These datado notincludetrials in whichthe ballwas bobbled andtrapped againstthebodyortrials in which no contactat all was made with the ball. .
ROES: December 1992
353
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:48 13 November 2014
Fischman, Moore, andSteele
and sports. Therefore, a logical speculation is that the gender differences found in one-hand catching may be attributed, in part, to the greater involvement by young boys in sports such as baseball and softball. As Wickstrom (1983) suggests, in these sports the use ofaglove gives an enormous boost to the catching skills ofboys and encourages the earlier development of one-handed catching. Recent work by Fischman and his colleagues using adult subjects has shown that experience with baseball and softball substantially changes the nature of the act of catching and also provides an advantage for barehand catching (Fischman 8cMucci, 1989; Fischman 8c Sanders, 1991; Fischman 8c Schneider, 1985). The fact that none of the present interactions involving age and gender were significant implies that the differences between boys and girls were similar at all ages. Boys' experience with ball games and sports may simply impart some general advantage in one-hand catching. A great deal of catching in baseball and softball involves balls that are rolling on the ground as well as balls that are airborne. An important topic for further study would be the relationship between gloved catching and barehand catching in children. Ball location appears to be an importantfactor in the catching performance of young children, although the effect was similar at all ages and for both sexes, because, once again, none of the interactions were significant Tosses that were farthest from the trunk region (e.g., ABOVE-TIlE-HEAD and Our-To-TIlE-SIDE) were much more definitive in forcing the use of an appropriate hand orientation than tosses that were closer to the body (e.g., SHOULDER). These findings are similar to those of Strohmeyer et al. (1991), who reported location effects in children's two-hand catching. They found that tosses directed at the torso elicited more advanced developmental patterns ofmovement for younger children (5-6 years old), but older children (11-12 years old) sometimes used less developmentally advanced patterns at this location. The older children, however, used more advanced patterns to catch balls thrown slightly above the head or to the side of the body. Strohmeyer etal. (1991) speculated that more "challenging" locations forced the children to use more advanced catching patterns, whereas the less challenging torso location allowed the older children more freedom to experiment with their responses. These findings illustrate the importance of environmental constraints on the shape ofaction patterns (e.g., Kelso 8cSchoner, 1988). Unfortunately, Strohmeyer et al. (1991) did not report any data on the number of successful catches made by their subjects at the various targetlocations (i.e., "product"variables, Roberton, 1984), so not enough information is available to evaluate the relationship between the action pattern chosen and the success of the catch. McConnell and Wade (1990) also found that kindergarteners and first-graders had more difficulty
354
catching a rolling ball coming directly at the center ofthe body than one coming slightly off-center in either direction. In the present study, subjects caught fewer balls at the WAIfJf location than the other locations but did not appear to have difficulty selecting the appropriate hand orientation at this location. Clearly, the effect of ball location on one-hand catching performance is worthy of further study. Based on our definitions of the appropriate mode of control for each ball location, we found that, with the exception ofthe SHOULDER location for girls under age 11, subjects were choosing the appropriate hand orientation at all ages. These findings are important because they indicate that even very young children are able to integrate at least part ofthe correct motor response (i.e., the positioning phase) with the perceptual aspects of the moving ball. However, as might be expected, based on the difficulty even highly skilled catchers experience with timing the grasping phase of one-hand catching (Fischman 8c Mucci, 1989; Fischman 8cSchneider, 1985), this phase would prove very difficult for young children. Alderson (1974) also reported results that are consistent with our findings. He filmed 15 boys (ages 7, 10, and 13) making a one-handed catch ofa ball thrown from a machine and noted that even the 7-year-olds were able to position their hand in place to catch (77% "contacts"), with 61% of the trials being within 1 in. of the optimum contact area. Alderson also analyzed the finger flexion movements and found that each age group had the same flexion time but that the 7-year-olds started their flexion 10-15 ms later than the older boys did. Thus, the problem for the younger boys may not have been so much one of correctly evaluating the environmental conditions but, rather, of adjusting their motor responses to these conditions (Keogh 8cSugden, 1985). The hand orientation data from the present study also illustrate another point. That is, even though a child selects the correct hand orientation based on the location of the toss, the ball may not necessarily be caught. This is particularly true for the youngest age groups, where very few catches were successful. Conversely, the older children may, at times, select an inappropriate hand orientation but still realize a positive outcome. For example, for the 11- and 12-year-old boys, a combined total of 34 inappropriate orientations were selected for tosses at the WAIfJf, yet 33 of these (97%) resulted in successful catches. These observations relate nicely to those of Strohmeyer et al. (1991), who indicated that some of their older subjects may have "played" with the way they responded when tosses were to less challenging locations. As children get older and become more skillful, they have more freedom to experiment with their responses, especially when the task is relatively simple. This study is the first attempt at systematic study of one-hand catching in children. In general we found that the location ofthe toss constrains the child's selection of
ROES: December 1992
Fischman, Moore. andSteele
an appropriate hand-ann orientation and that even very young children are sensitive enough to the perceptual aspects of the toss so that they can at least position their hand in the ball's line offlight. Further research should be devoted to a more fine-grained analysis of the positioningand grasping phases in children's one-hand catching, as well as to documenting the developmental sequence of this skill. This research is currently underway in our laboratory.
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:48 13 November 2014
References Alderson,IG. j. K (1974). The develofrmenJ of motion pndiction ability in the context of sports slcills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds, England. Cratty, B.j. (1979). Perceptualand motordevelofrmenJ in infants and childrm (2nd 00.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Diggles, V. A., Grabiner, M. D., Be Garhammer,j. (1987). Skill level and efficacy of effector visual feedback in ball catching. Perceptual and MotorS1cills, 64, 987-993. Espenschade, A S., Be Eckert, H. M. (1980). MotordevelofrmenJ (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Fischman, M. G., Be Mucci, W. G. (1989). Influence ofa baseball glove on the nature oferrors produced in simple one-hand catching. Research QJuzrterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 251255. Fischman, M. G., Be Sanders, R. (1991). An empirical note on the bilateral use of a baseball glove by skilled catchers. Perceptual and MotorS1cills, 72, 219-223. Fischman, M. G., Be Schneider, T. (1985). Skill level, vision, and proprioception in simple one-hand catching. Journal of MotorBehavior, it. 219-229. Glass, G. V, BeStanley,j. C. (1970). Statisticalmethods in education and psychology. Englewood Cliffs, Nj: Prentice-Hall. Haubenstricker, j., Branta, C., Be Seefeldt, V. (1983, May). Preliminary validation of developmental sequ.enas for throwing and catching. Paper presented at the annual conference of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, East Lansing, MI. Hofsten, C. von. (1980). Predictive reaching for moving objects by human infants. Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology, 30, 369-382. Hofsten, C. von. (1983). Catching skills in infancy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9,75-85.
RDES: December 1992
Hofsten, c. von. (1987). Catching. In H. Heuer BeA.F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp, 33-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hofsten, C. von, Be Lindhagen, K. (1979). Observations on the development of reaching for moving objects. Journal of ExperimentalChildPsychology, 28, 158-173. Kelso, j. A. S., Be Schaner, G. (1988). Self-organization of coordinative movementpatterns. HumanMuvnnmt&imce, 7.27-46. Keogh,j., Be Sugden, D. (1985). Muvnnmt slcill development. New York: Macmillan. McConnell, A., Be Wade, G. (1990). Effects of lateral ball location, grade, and sex on catching. Perceptual and Motor S1cills, 70, 59-66. Roberton, M. A (1984). Changing motor patterns during childhood. Inj. R. Thomas (Ed.), MotordevelofrmenJ during childhood and adolescence (pp. 48-90). Minneapolis: Burgess. Siegel,S., Be Castellan, N.j.,jr. (1988). Nonparametricstatisticsfor the behavioral scimces(2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill. Smyth, M. M., Be Marriott, A. M. (1982). Vision and proprioception in simple catching. Journal ofMotorBehavior, 14, 143152. Strohmeyer, H. S., Williams, K., Be Schaub-George, D. (1991). Developmental sequences for catching a small ball: A prelongitudinal screening. Research Q!umerly for Exercise and Sport. 62, 257-266. Thomas,j. R., Be Nelson,j. K. (1990). Research methods in physical activity (2nd ed.), Champaign, II.: Human Kinetics. Wellman, B. L. (1937). Motor achievements of preschool children. ChildhoodEducation. 1).311-316. Whiting, H. T. A., Savelsbergh, G.j. P., Be Faber, C. M. (1988). "Catch" questions and incomplete answers. In A. M.Colley Bej. R. Beech (Eds.) , Cognition and actionin slcilled behaviour (pp. 257-271). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Wickstrom, R. L (1983). Fundamental motorpatt#/ms (3rd ed.), Philadelphia: Lea Be Febiger.
Authors" Notes We thank Beverly Boling and Elizabeth Gregory for assistance with collecting the data and Robert Malina, Kathleen Haywood, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. Address all reprint requests to Mark G. Fischman, Department of Health and Human Performance, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849.
355
