Premise A contemporary view of human (and motor) development involves understanding the

1. Assessing the Home Environment For Affordances in Motor DevelopmentCarl GabbardTexas A&M University Luis RodriguesPolytechnic Institute of Viana do Castelo, Portugal

2. Premise A contemporary view of human (and motor) development involves understanding the changing relations between the developing person and his or her changing, multilevel context -environment

3. Developmental Contextualism Person and his or her changing, multilevel context (environment)”(Lerner, 2002) “the contextual model explains the child’s behavior as a function of environmental characteristics” (Lewis, 2000)

4. Developmental priming mechanisms • encouragement to explore • mentoring in basic cognitive and social • skills • celebrating new skills • rehearsing and expanding new skills • protection from negative factors • stimulation in communication skills (Ramey & Ramey, 1998; American Psychologist)

5. A relatively well accepted assumption among developmentalists is that motor-, perceptual-, and cognitive development are fundamentally interrelated (e.g., Bertenthal & Campos, 1990; Diamond, 2000; Thelen & Smith, 2004). Suggesting that status of motor development is an important factor in overall child well-being

6. Environmental Effects An optimal level of development occurs only with a stimulating environment and strong contextual support (e.g. Diamond & Hopson, 1998; Fischer & Rose, 1998; Ramey & Ramey, 1998). “rich environments produce rich brains (and bodies)” The National Academies (January, 2000) “ Research indicates that early relationships are especially critical, and that cultural values and practices provide the context for these bonds.”

7. mother - infant interaction (attachment theory) mother’s education divorce stress (e.g., Lewis, 2000;Miceli et al., 2000) Socio-emotional effects on developmental outcome

8. The HOME is a primary agent for learning and development, especially during the early years “ one problem is to define the quality of the environment-- this requires that the environment be measured” (Lewis, 2000)

9. The HOME Inventory(Caldwell & Bradley, 1984; 1989) Effects on cognitive and social development Interestingly, one of the most consistent findings among numerous HOME studies has been "availability of stimulating play materials" as a predictor of future mental behavior (e.g., Bradley et al., 1989 [Develop. Psy]; Mundrom et al., 1993)

10. HOME effects on motor development? minimal information is available In essence, “a valid measure reflecting aspects of the home environment that support infant motor development needs to be created” (Abbott, Bartlett, Fanning & Kramer, 2000)

11. Affordance(Gibson, 1979) Theory explores the potential relationships between person-environment Properties of the environment that offer the individual the opportunity to learn or utilize a skill or develop a part of the biological system Affordances create opportunities for actions (Heft, 1997), a perspective that complements contemporary motor development theory (Thelen & Smith, 1994)

12. The AHEMD Affordances in the Home Environment for Motor Development A unique observational research instrument to assess the quality and quantity of motor development affordances in the home for children 3- to 42 months

13. Development And Validation of the AHEMD-SR (Affordances In The Home Environment For Motor Development – Self Report) Carl Gabbard Texas A&M University Luis Rodrigues Polytechnic Institute of Viana do Castelo, Portugal

14. In essence, “a valid measure reflecting aspects of the home environment that support infant motor development needs to be created” (Abbott, Bartlett, Fanning & Kramer, 2000)

15. Theoretical Framework The starting premise, deeply founded in selected propositions of Ecological (affordance) theory is that the home environment can provide affordances that can be conducive to stimulating motor development Affordances

16. Fine Motor Gross Motor AHEMD- SR

17. Project Design Phase 1 Collection of affordances Phase 2 Development of instrument Phase 3 Validation of the structure Phase 4 Validation of the construct • Extensive inspection of contemporary literature • Expert opinion • Formulation of questions • Pilot testing of the inventory Study 1 Study 2

18. Initial Goals • To determine if there is a common structure underlying characteristics present in the home environment that can be conducive to motor development. • To determine if parents using a self-reporting inventory can reliably assess this structure. • To determine if there is a relationship between these factors and level of motor development. It was hypothesized that a low AHEMD score complements the likelihood of a low motor development score.

19. Initial development of the AHEMD-SR

20. Simple dichotomic question

21. Likert-type scale question

22. Description-based questions

23. Study 1(structural validity) Method • PARTICIPANTS – 381 volunteer families with children within the age range 18-to-42 months. • PROCEDURE – Directors of the early childhood centers gave each family a letter explaining the purpose of the study, asking for their collaboration and providing consent forms. • DATA ANALYSIS – Robust CFAs were used to test the fit of the plausible models and to compare between nested models. • Internal consistency of the instrument was estimated by the scale reliability coefficient (SRC).

24. Outside surfaces Outside apparatus Inside amount of space Inside apparatus Inside surfaces Inside play space Play stimulation Freedom of movements Encouragement stimulation Daily activities Affordances Replica toys Educational toys Games Others Construction toys Real materials Musical materials Manipulative materials Locomotor materials Body exploration materials

25. Study 1.Results Chi-square statistics, indicators of fit, and nested model comparison for the five models

26. Outside surfaces 0.72 0.83 Outside apparatus Inside amount of space 0.54 Inside apparatus 0.31 Inside Space Inside surfaces 0.45 0.57 Inside play space Play stimulation 0.39 Freedom of movements 0.34 0.36 Encouragement stimulation 0.36 Daily activities Replica toys 0.80 Educational toys 0.84 Fine Motor Toys Outside Space 0.77 Games Others 0.75 Construction toys 0.74 0.55 Real materials Musical materials 0.74 0.53 Manipulative materials 0.74 Locomotor materials 0.44 Body exploration materials Variety of Stimulation Gross Motor Toys 0.48 0.56 0.20 0.58 0.69 0.59 0.87 SRC= .87; CI SRC= .82 to .91

27. Study 1.Results Classification norms for the AHEMD, Subscales and Total.

28. Study 1.Discussion and Conclusions • The data revealed a common structured organization of potential affordances in the home environment comprising five latent factors: Outside Space, Inside Space, Variety of Stimulation, Fine Motor Toys, and Gross Motor Toys. • AHEMD-SR showed to be a valid indicator of affordances found in the home environment that have the ‘potential’ to influence the motor development of young children. • As such, this instrument has promise in addressing the statement by Abbott et al. (2000) recommending that “a valid measure reflecting aspects of the home environment that support infant motor development needs to be created” (p. 66).

29. Study 2.Establishing Construct Validity • AIM - To test the construct validity of the self-report instrument. • HYPOTHESIS – There is a relationship betweenthe AHEMD-SR home evaluation and children’s level of motor development . • PREDICTION – Alow AHEMD score complements the likelihood of a low motor development score

30. Study 2.Method • PARTICIPANTS – A sub-sample of 51 families from the 381 of Study 1 (17 girls, 34 boys). • PROCEDURE – The PDMS2 was administered to each participant by the same researcher. • Motor assessments took place in each center facility in a reserved and isolated area. Testing was interrupted whenever a child showed signs of not being attentive or collaborating. If so, consecutive days were used to complete the assessment. • All motor assessments were videotaped, reviewed and then destroyed.

31. Study 2.Method • DATA ANALYSIS – Individual results of AHEMD Total and Subscales values were classified according to normative values from Study 1. • PDMS2 values for Fine (FMQ), Gross (GMQ) and Total motor quotients (TMQ) were used as dependent variables to compare AHEMD groups (Q1 to Q4) for each subscale (ANOVAs) • Stepwise regression analyses tested for the possible linear association between the five AHEMD subscales and their interaction with each of the PDMS2 motor quotients (fine, gross and total).

32. Study 2.Results

33. Preliminary Conclusions* • children with lower AHEMD subscales have lower mean motor development profiles, especially for Inside Space and Variety of Stimulation • total AHEMD scores showed an increasing average from Low to High AHEMD on all three motor quotients. This insight is of most importance to this study because it takes into account not only the number but also the variety of affordances *findings are inconclusive due to narrow variation in motor scores

34. Future Research • include greater sample sizes, involving a wider variation of motor development, especially in the lower range • Peabody DMS, AIMS, PFMAI • expand the age range of the instrument (0-6 mo, 6-12 mo)

35. Research • AHEMD and later academic performance (e.g., 3-, 5-, 6 years) • prove the instrument clinical significance for early intervention • show appeal to educators and parents wishing to optimize the development of normal children through home modification and parental education • examine the cross-cultural characteristics • study intervention with at-risk populations (LBW, SES)

36. Research Partners • Hungary • US • Portugal • Canada • Belgium • Brazil • Agradecemos a sua participação!