EQOL Journal (2017) 9(2):
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Aleksandar Miletić1✉ • Branka
© The Author(s) 2017. This article is published with open access.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to establish the gender- related differences among children
Keywords preschool age • morphology • differences
✉miletic.aleksandar@ymail.com
1University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, Novi Sad, Serbia
Introduction
The human physique, in this case children's, is represented by the components of anthropological status that are the most prominent features of latent dimensions. Therefore, the physique affects, in a certain degree, the development and improvement of other human characteristics and abilities, while being exceptionally pronounced at the childhood age and very much affected by the various endogenous and exogenous factors.
The intensity of an individual's growth, according to Rolland Cachera, is not always the same, but rather happens in successive phases and is conditioned by various influences, both genetic and exogenous factors (Rolland Cachera, 1995). According to the research of Ivanovic (2009), the body proportions, under the influence of hereditory and exogenous factors, affect the growth and development of bone and muscle tissue and the formation of somatotype.
For this particular research, the subcutaneous fat was of a greater importance as it can greatly affect the motor behaviour in preschool children. The issue of differences in anthropometric features of preschool children has already been studied by Bala, 1981; Bala 1991; Hu & Bentler, 1998; Bala, Jakšić, & Popović, 2009; Đurić, 1997; Božić- Krstić et al., 2000;
&Marinković, 2013. They emphasise the existance of statistically significant differences among the subjects of different genders and ages in the morphological space. The influence of various endogenous and exogenous factors upon
31
EQOL Journal (2017) 9(2):
the growth and development of the child's body has been reported. No statistically significant differences between boys and girls have been found in terms of the half year height growth. When it comes to weight, the discrepancies between preschool boys and girls have been found, with boys having somewhat greater body mass
The research problem of this study was the analysis of differences in morphological features of 6 and
Table 1. Sample structure according to gender and age
at the age of 6. H2: there are statistically significant differences in the morphological space of children of different genders at the age of 6.5.
Method
The method applied here was that of description, non- experimental observation meaning one measurement of the chosen morphological variables. The plan of the research was ex post facto which is one of the non- experimental research plans.
The sample of the research included a total of 175 subjects (M=45 aged 6 and M=43 aged 6.5; F=44 aged 6 and F=43 aged 6.5), boys and girls of PU “Milica Nozica” in Valjevo. In view of gender, the structure of subjects was a total of 88 boys (50.28%) and 87 girls (49.71%).
Age |
Boys |
Girls |
Total |
|
|
|
|
45 (51.1%) |
44 (49.9%) |
89 (50.1%) |
|
43 (50.0%) |
43 (50.0%) |
86 (49.1%) |
|
Total |
88 (49.9%) |
87 (50.1%) |
175 (100%) |
|
|
|
|
The sample of anthropometric variables consisted of a battery of 7 anthropometric measurements:
I for longitudinal skeleton assessment:
1)Body height (mm).
IIfor volume and body mass assessment:
1)Body mass (kg),
2)Stretched forearm circumference (mm) and
3)Stretched upper arm circumference (mm);
IIIfor subcutaneous fat tissue assessment the following skin folds were measured:
1)Upper arm skin fold (mm),
2)Abdomen skin fold (mm),
3)Back skin fold (mm).
The research was realised after the parental consent was obtained considering that all the subjects were minors, which meant application of the Declaration of Helsinki regarding the rights of children participation in research. For the anthropometric features measurements, we used the
32
anthropometer, decimal digital scales, tailor's centimeter tape measure and John Bull calipers.
In the statistical method of data processing, the fundamental descriptive statistics of anthropometric variables were established: arithmetic mean (AM), standard deviation (S) minimal (MIN) and maximal (MAX) values of the assessment results, coefficient of variation (CV), especially for the two samples analysed. The regularity of the results distribution was established using
Results
Based on the descriptive statistics (Table 2), it is noticeable that with the
EQOL Journal (2017) 9(2):
of anthropometric measurements are exceptionally homogenous in both groups of boys and girls variable for the longitudinal skeleton assessment (Body height). Also, a lesser variability of the results is noticeable in the body volume assessment (Stretched both upper arm and forearm circumference) in both subgroups of subjects.
The values of
The assumption on the homogeneity of the variance and covariance matrices was not disturbed, since the statistical significance of the Box’s
(Table 2) it can be concluded that there is a statistically significant difference (P=0.00) between the
1)Subcutaneous fat, upper arm skin fold (p=0.03) and
2)Back skin fold (p=0.00) in favor of the boys.
No statistically significant differences were found in the rest of the morphological variables analyzed (p>0.05).
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and the difference analysis of results in the
Variable |
Gender |
MIN |
MAX |
M |
S |
CV |
KSP |
f |
p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Body height (cm) |
♂ |
115.11 |
133.40 |
126.14 |
3.92 |
3.11 |
0.65 |
0.56 |
0.46 |
|
116.20 |
139.0 |
124.52 |
4.29 |
4.19 |
0.56 |
|||
|
♀ |
|
|
||||||
Body mass (kg) |
♂ |
17.87 |
42.68 |
24.92 |
4.17 |
27.53 |
0.32 |
0.49 |
0.48 |
|
17.21 |
31.36 |
25.59 |
4.25 |
36.58 |
0.35 |
|||
|
♀ |
|
|
||||||
Stretched upper arm |
♂ |
165 |
252 |
194.25 |
23.18 |
11.93 |
0.66 |
2.25 |
0.14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
circumference (mm) |
|
155 |
243 |
187.31 |
30.34 |
16.20 |
0.56 |
||
♀ |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
Stretched lower arm |
♂ |
160 |
235 |
185.02 |
16.67 |
9.01 |
0.71 |
3.14 |
0.08 |
circumference (mm) |
|
150 |
217 |
179.16 |
14.48 |
8.08 |
0.69 |
||
♀ |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
Abdomen skin fold |
♂ |
28 |
210 |
73.89 |
45.45 |
61.51 |
0.04 |
0.23 |
0.64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
(0,1 mm) |
|
32 |
180 |
78.07 |
37.03 |
47.43 |
0.03 |
||
♀ |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
Upper arm skin fold |
♂ |
3.83 |
24.10 |
9.54 |
4.12 |
42.06 |
0.06 |
4.97 |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
(0,1 mm) |
|
3.94 |
25.61 |
10.06 |
3.44 |
30.16 |
0.09 |
||
♀ |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
Back skin fold (0,1 |
♂ |
3.84 |
26.2 |
6.95 |
3.68 |
59.74 |
0.08 |
7.20 |
0.00 |
mm) |
|
3.97 |
27.16 |
7.85 |
3.91 |
57.46 |
0.07 |
||
♀ |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
F=5.15 P=0.00
Legend: M – boys; F – girls; MIN – minimal values; MAX – maximal values; M – mean; S – standard deviation; CV – coefficient of variation; KSP – level of statistical significance Kolmogorov Smirnov test of distribution normality; f – univariate
As was the case with the homogeneity of the results in the subgroup of
forearm circumference), while a greater variability of the results was observable in the rest of the variables as a consequence of the said factors at this age.
The values of
33
EQOL Journal (2017) 9(2):
subgroup, which can be a consequence of a greater variability of results (Table 3).
Based on the F values (Table 3) it can be concluded that there is a statistically significant difference (P=0.00) between the boys and girls aged
6.5as regards their anthropometric features and observing the whole system of variables applied. Based on the individual analysis of each variable analyzed, it can be concluded that there are statistically significant differences in variables:
1)For skeletal longitudinality assessment: Body height (p=0.03).
2)For upper arm subcutaneous fat assessment: Upper arm skin fold (p=0.00) and
3)Back skin fold (p=0.02) in favor of the boys.
Other variables for the morphological space assessment in children showed no statistically significant differences at this age.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and analysis of result differences in subjects aged 6.5
Variable |
Gender |
MIN |
MAX |
M |
S |
CV |
KSP |
f |
p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Body height (cm) |
♂ |
111.62 |
130.75 |
129.23 |
4.96 |
3.84 |
0.55 |
5.02 |
0.03 |
|
117.20 |
141.9 |
127.16 |
5.21 |
4.39 |
0.44 |
|||
|
♀ |
|
|
||||||
Body mass (kg) |
♂ |
15.08 |
53.20 |
25.84 |
4.74 |
27.88 |
0.29 |
0.72 |
0.40 |
|
12.46 |
50.25 |
26.12 |
4.73 |
38.10 |
0.20 |
|||
|
♀ |
|
|
||||||
Stretched upper arm |
♂ |
165 |
255 |
199.45 |
25.83 |
12.95 |
0.47 |
0.79 |
0.38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
circumference (mm) |
|
159 |
253 |
204.12 |
22.80 |
11.17 |
0.75 |
||
♀ |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
Stretched lower arm |
♂ |
163 |
243 |
190.09 |
18.01 |
9.47 |
0.61 |
0.01 |
0.98 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
circumference (mm) |
|
161 |
226 |
189.17 |
16.35 |
8.64 |
0.81 |
||
♀ |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
Abdomen skin fold |
♂ |
30 |
184 |
73.41 |
41.05 |
55.92 |
0.03 |
0.85 |
0.36 |
(0,1 mm) |
|
32 |
196 |
81.24 |
37.44 |
46.09 |
0.01 |
||
♀ |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
Upper arm skin fold |
♂ |
3.12 |
31.3 |
10.25 |
4.31 |
45.22 |
0.10 |
10.20 |
0.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
(0,1 mm) |
|
3.44 |
33.00 |
12.86 |
4.78 |
37.41 |
0.11 |
||
♀ |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
Back skin fold (0,1 |
♂ |
3.97 |
35.89 |
7.16 |
4.26 |
61.01 |
0.06 |
4.83 |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
mm) |
|
4.00 |
36.12 |
8.14 |
4.77 |
58.35 |
0.08 |
||
♀ |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F=6.29 |
P=0.00 |
|
|
|
|
Discussion
The research results confirm the starting assumptions of the existence of statistically significant discrepancies in anthropometric features of children aged 6 and 6.5, considering gender of the subjects. The general dimorphism factor can be considered significant in determining body build in preschool children.
A greater variety in the skeletal longitudinality assessment variable in the subjects aged 6 is seen as a consequence of uniform growth and development of the child's body between the ages of 6 and 6.5. The homogeneity of the results, however, somewhat lesser, can be seen in the variables for body volume
34
assessment (Stretched upper and forearm circumference). In all other variables analyzed, a much greater variety of the results is noticeable, as a consequence of endogenous and exogenous factors, such as lifestyle, heredity (genetics), the degree of physical activity, social factors, etc., which affect the body mass and the volume of subcutaneous fat (skin fold) in particular.
Statistically significant differences in the anthropometric variables are noticeable in the morphological development of boys and girls. When observed separately, it was found that the boys had a greater skeletal longitudinality at the age of 6.5. It appears that in the period of an elder preschool age, based on the sample of subjects analyzed, the growth of long shaft bones in boys is more pronounced and
EQOL Journal (2017) 9(2):
faster than in girls. The intensity of this growth and development of bones in boys resulted in the existence of statistically significant difference in their favor (Eliakim & Beyth, 2003). An important feature of the preschool age is an emphasized and striking integrity of this development, when the child's development domains (physical, cognitive, motor etc.) are closely related. The development in one domain affects the development in the other. Although the child's growth and development mostly happen in relatively regular and predictable sequences, there are significant differences amongst children in the pace of this growth and development
(individuality and heterochrony laws of development). Observed individually, a child can develop much faster in one certain developmental domain than in others.
The body height and mass show no such statistically significant discrepancies between the boys and the girls in the ages analyzed. Therefore, the biological growth and development of both boys and girls is very much alike at the preschool age, which is also confirmed in the results of Bala et al. (2009).
Determination of quantitative differences in the chosen variables between the boys and girls of the age analyzed in this study, was done with the aim of indicating, and not explaining the degree and significance of these discrepancies. In order to make this research more precise and complete, it is necessary to conduct kinesiological research of longitudinal character based on a much greater number of subjects and with a greater number of variables, based on which then it would be possible to diagnose and program the body development in younger preschool population much more successfully, i.e., improve the possibility of generalization of the findings.
Theoretically speaking, this study should help in the choice of the parameters of morphological space that should be observed when working with younger children population, as well as in the choice of appropriate morphological features to be observed for growth and development assessment that could be applied in such work.
References
Bala, G. (1981). Struktura i razvoj morfoloških i motoričkih dimenzija dece SAP Vojvodine. Novi Sad: Fakultet fizičke kulture.
Bala, G. (2004). Kvantitativne razlike osnovnih
antropometrijskih karakteristika i motoričkih
sposobnosti dečaka i devojčica u predškolskom uzrastu. Glasnik Antropološkog društva Srbije, 39,
Bala, G. (1991). Kvantitativne razlike osnovnih
antropometrijskih karakteristika i motoričkih sposobnosti dečaka i devojčica u predškolskom uzrastu. XLII Kongres antropologa Jugoslavije, Izvodi saopštenja (72).
Bala, G., Jakšić, D., i Popović, B. (2009). Trend relacija morfoloških karakteristika i motoričkih sposobnosti predškolske dece. U G. Bala (ur.), Relacije antropoloških karakteristika i sposobnosti predškolske dece (str.
Đurić, D. (1997). Telesni rast i razvoj dece predškolskog uzrasta u Novom Sadu. Diplomski rad. Novi Sad: Univerzitet u Novom Sadu,
Eliakim, A. & Beyth, Y. (2003). Exercise training, menstrual irregularities and bone development in children and adolescents. Journal od Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 16(4),
Filipović, O. (2000). Antropološke karakteristike predškolske dece u Sremskoj Mitrovici. Diplomski rad, Novi Sad: Univerzitet u Novom Sadu, Prirodno- matematički fakultet, Institut za biologiju.
Hu, L. & Bentler, R. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitiviy to underparameterized model misspecification, Psychological Methods, 3,
Jürimäe, T. (2000). Growth, physical activity, and motor development in prepubertal children. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Pavlica, T.,
Pavlović, S. i Marinković, D. (2013). Razlike u
morfološkim karakteristikama i motoričkim sposobnostima dece predškolskog uzrasta. U Perić, D (ur.) „Razvojne karakteristike dece predškolskog uzrasta” (str.
Pejčić, A. i Malacko, J. (2005). The ontogenetic development of morphological characteristcs and motor abilities of boys and girls in early elementary school. Kinesiologia Slovenica,11 (2),
35
EQOL Journal (2017) 9(2):
Poček, S. (2006). Motoričke sposobnosti i antropometrijske karakteristike dece predškolskog uzrasta u zavisnosti od pola. U G. Bala (ur.), Antropološki status i fizička aktivnost dece, omladine i odraslih (str.
Popović, B. (2008). Trend razvoja antropometrijskih karakterisika dece uzrasta
Sabo, E. (2002). Psihosomatski status dece predškolskog uzrasta pri upisu u osnovnu školu. Doktorska disertacija. Novi Sad: Fakulet fizičke kulture.
Sabo, E. (2006). Razlike između dečaka i devojčica u antropometrijskim karakteristikama prilikom upisa u osnovnu školu. Pedagoška stvarnost, 52,
Veselinović, N., Milenković, D. i Jorgić, B. (2009). Relacije morfoloških karakteristika i motoričkih sposobnosti sa rezultatima na poligonu spretnosti kod dece predškolskog uzrasta. Glasnik Antropološkog društva Srbije, 44,
.
36