ADAPTED PHYSICAL ACTlVlN QUARTERLY, 1993.10.

157-163
O 1993 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

The Standing Long Jump Performances of

Preschool Children With Speech Impairments
and Children With Normal Speech

William J. Merriman Joan B. Kofka

Beth E. Barnett Rockland County BOCES
Manhattan College

This study was undertaken to investigate quantitative and qualitative differ-

ences in the standing long jump as performed by preschool children with
speech impairments and those with normal speech. The subjects were 15
children with speech impairments and 15 children with normal speech, 3 to
5 years of age. The qualitative movement components of the standing long
Brought to you by BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/13/22 09:07 PM UTC

jump were measured with the Developmental Sequence of the Standing Long
Jump (Van Sant, 1983). Subjects were videotaped while performing the
standing long jump, and each jump was rated according to the Developmental
Sequence. The quantitative variable of distance jumped was also measured.
The analysis of data revealed no significant differences between the mean
distance scores of the speech-impaired and normal-speech groups. However,
data analysis did reveal a significant difference between the mean movement
component rating scores of the two groups.

Over the last decade, federal legislation has been enacted that requires
states to implement an early intervention system for children from birth to age
5 with disabilities. The Preschool Program (Section 619 of Part B) of the Individu-
als with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires states to provide educational
services for all eligible preschoolers (ages 3 to 5) with disabilities (Public Law
101-476, 1990).
IDEA has abandoned categorical labeling (e.g., learning disabled, emotion-
ally disturbed) of preschoolers so eligible children can be identified noncategori-
cally. However, within the total population of children with disabilities, many
will have speech or language disorders (Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1990).
Fein (1983), in a review of prevalence studies, concluded that speech
impairments serious enough to warrant special attention are present in approxi-
mately 4.2% of school-age children, or between 2 and 3 million children. During

William J. Memman and Beth E. Barnett are with the Department of Health and
Physical Education, Manhattan College, Bronx, NY 10471. Joan B. Kofka is with Rockland
County BOCES, New City, NY 10956.
 158 Merriman, Barnett, and Kofka

the 1987-88 school year, a total of 946,904 children received special education
services due to speechpanguage disorders (Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1990). This
equaled 23% of the total number of children with disabilities receiving special
education services.
This study focused on preschool children with speech impairments. A
widely used definition states that "speech is abnormal when it deviates so far
from the speech of other people that it calls attention to itself, interferes with
communication or causes the speaker or his listeners to be distressed" (Van
Riper & Emerick, 1984, p. 34). The three classifications of speech disorders are
articulation, voice, and fluency.
Speech disorders are often manifested in conjunction with other disabilities.
Because speech is dependent on neurological and motor development, any neuro-
logical or motor problem might impair the ability to speak and also might
impair social development, which is highly related to the emergence of language
(Hallahan & Kauffman, 1991). This speculation can be further explored through
the dynarnical systems (Thelen, Kelso, & Fogel, 1987) or Bernsteinian (Berstein,
1967) framework currently employed in motor development. This approach sees
movement as the "final common pathway" for the accomplishment of goals or
tasks including speech and social behaviors (Thelen, 1989). Movement is seen as
"emerging from the confluence and interaction of many developing components
(perceptual, affective, attentional, motivational, postural, and anatomic) within
a particular context" (Thelen, 1986, p. 1498). Lack of development in any
Brought to you by BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/13/22 09:07 PM UTC

component would limit the rate of development of the emergent movement. This
rate limitation might then appear within all tasks (speech, social behaviors, the
performance of motor skills) that make use of the common pathway of movement.
This would lead to the prediction that children with speech disorders might also
display difficulties in the performance of motor skills.
Several studies (Bilto, 1941; Cermak, Ward, & Ward, 1986; Jenkins &
Lohr, 1964; McLoughlin & Gullo, 1982; Prins, 1962) have found that children
with speechpanguage disorders do not perform as well on motor coordination
tests when compared to children with normal speech. Results of other studies
(Bishop, 1992; Carroll, Fuller, & Lindley, 1989) have indicated that children
with articulation problems do not perform as well on visual-motor skills. Neuro-
anatomical research has started to address cerebral control of speech and limb
movements and the association between spoken language and manual dexterity
(Hammond, 1990). Levine (1985) has suggested that articulation deficits are
more clearly related to fine-motor planning than gross-motor planning.
This study was undertaken to further investigate the influence of speech
impairments on a gross motor skill. In keeping with current trends in the study
of motor development (Rarick, 1982), a process-oriented approach that included
observation of individual body segments and their contributions to the overall
movement was used. Specifically, preschool children with speech impairments
and those with normal speech were compared on performances of the standing
long jump. This skill was selected for its early age of acquisition, generally by
3 years of age (Bayley, 1935), and because of the availability of an accepted
developmental sequence (Roberton & Halverson, 1984; Thomas, 1984; Van Sant,
1983). It was hoped that the investigation and observation of differences within
the actual organization of the jump might provide a more in-depth understanding
of how children differ in their performances of this skill.
 Standing Long Jump

Methods
Subjects
For this study, 30 preschool children, 15 who were children with speech impair-
ments (12 boys and 3 girls) and 15 who had normal speech (10 boys and 5 girls),
were selected from the same private school. Parents of all preschool children in
the school were sent letters requesting permission for their children to participate
in the study. The f i s t 30 children (15 with speech impairments, 15 with normal
speech) for whom permission was received became subjects in the study. Subjects
for this study were designated as speech impaired and eligible for speech therapy
by the Committee on Preschool Special Education of the school district where
they resided at the time of this study. Subjects were not reported to have other
disabilities. Five subjects at each of three age levels were selected for both groups.
Means and standard deviations for each age level are presented in Table 1. An
independent t test indicated no significant difference in mean age for the two
groups.
Instrument
The arm, leg, and trunk actions in the standing long jump were evaluated by use
of the Developmental Sequence of the Standing Long Jump as developed by
Brought to you by BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/13/22 09:07 PM UTC

Van Sant (1983). Several nationally recognized experts in motor development

have recommended Van Sant's DevelopmentalSequence for study of the standing
long jump (Roberton & Halverson, 1984; Thomas, 1984). This instrument ex-
amines six components of the standing long jump grouped according to arm,
leg, and trunk actions on the takeoff, and a flight and landing portion of the
movement. Investigators evaluate each component by determining at which level
a child performs the specific component of the skill. Two components have four
levels, and one component has five levels. Possible scores range from 6 (all six
components performed at the lowest developmental level) to 23 (all six compo-
nents performed at the highest developmental level).
Distance covered by the jump was also measured. A 60-in. (152.4-cm)
tape measure was used to measure (to the nearest 112 in., or 1.27 cm) the distance

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Ages Across Groups

Age Speech Normal

group impaired speech Overall
M SD M SD M SD

3 3.44 .32 3.42 .33 3.43 .31

4 4.82 .19 4.42 .41 4.52 .36
5 5.14 .33 5.40 .24 5.27 .25
Overall 4.40 .78 4.41 .89 4.41 .82
 160 Merriman, Barneff,and Kofka

from the starting line to that part of the body that was closest to the line at the
termination of the jump.
Procedure
Each subject was tested individually. A physical demonstration of the standing
long jump was provided by the examiner prior to testing, which was conducted
indoors on a mat. Subjects were instructed to place their toes on the starting line
and jump as far forward as possible. Each subject performed three trials of the
jump. An 8-mm video camcorder was used to record the side view of the subject
during each of the three trials. Distance jumped was measured at the termination
of each trial. All 30 subjects were tested over a period of 3 days.
Four physical therapists, each with at least 10 years of experience working
with preschool children, volunteered to participate as raters for this study. Prior
to testing for this study, all raters attended a 2-hr training session in the use of
the Developmental Sequence of the Standing Long Jump. After training, each
rater viewed the performance videos and individually rated the three trials for
each subject. A mean across the three trials was calculated, resulting in four
scores (a mean from each rater) for each child.

Results
Brought to you by BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/13/22 09:07 PM UTC

Fifteen children with speech impairments and fifteen children with normal speech
were evaluated by four raters on the developmental level of their standing long
jump. Correlations between raters' scores are presented in Table 2.
A 2 x 3 x 4 (Speech Group x Age x Rater) repeated-measures ANOVA
was used to analyze the raters' scores. Significant main effects were found for
the group factor, F(1,24) = 7.95, p<.05, with the normal-speech group receiving
significantly higher scores (M = 15.5, SD = 3.8) than the speech-impaired group
(M = 11.6, SD = 3.8). No significant differences were found for age or raters
nor were any of the interactions significant.
A second analysis that used a 2 x 3 (Speech Group x Age) ANOVA
evaluated distance covered by the jump. Although no significant differences were
found between the speech groups, significant main effects were noted for the

Table 2
Inter-rater Reliability Coefficients

Rater

Rater 1 2 3 4
 Standing Long Jump 161

3 4 5
Age Groups

Figure 1 -Mean distances jumped for 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children with speech
Brought to you by BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/13/22 09:07 PM UTC

impairments and children with normal speech.

age factor, F(2, 24) = 6.44, p<.05. Post hoc analysis with the Scheffe test and
p<.05 found no significant differences between any pairings of the three age
means (Figure 1).

Discussion
This study was undertaken to investigate quantitative and qualitative differences
in the standing long jump performed by preschool children with speech impair-
ments and those with normal speech. Analysis of the quantitative measure of
distance jumped indicated no significant difference between means for the two
groups. These results tend to negate any concern that the groups differed in their
interpretation of the directions to jump forward as far as possible. Additionally,
the results of this study dispute the findings of McLoughlin and Gullo's (1982)
study, in which a significantrelationship was found between quantitativemeasures
of verbal and motor performance of 3- and 4-year-old children. However, the
disparity between the results of the present study and McLoughlin and Gullo's
(1982) study might be explained by Levine's (1985) suggestion that speech
deficits are more closely related to fine-motor planning rather than gross-motor
planning. The finding of significant main effects for age supports age-related
improvement in quantitative measures of skill performance (Thomas, 1990).
However, lack of significant age differences in qualitative measures of
performance indicates that quantitative improvement is not due to increasingly
more mature performances of the jump across the three age groups. Combined,
- -

these results support the importance of analyzing both &d quantitative

 162 Merriman, Barnett, and Kofka

measures in order to better understand the process by which a particular skill

performance is accomplished rather than focusing on the quantitative product of
the verformance.
Results of the present study also indicated that the mean qualitative score
for the normal-speech group was significantly higher than the speech-impaired
group. Overall, the normal-speech group demonstrated more developmentally
mature movement patterns for the standing long jump. A review of the literature
on motor performance in children with speech impairments did not reveal any
examinations of the qualitative aspects of their motor skills. Current investigation
in the motor development literature has shifted away from product or outcome
measures and has focused on process or patterns that emerge during the perfor-
mance of a motor skill.
For example, Clark, Phillips, and Peterson (1989) and Jensen and Phillips
(1991), through qualitative analysis, have attempted to identify stability and
variation in the organization of children's and adults' jumping behaviors across
changes in task demands. The qualitative, rather than quantitative, approach
allows inferences concerning the nature of control processes involved in the
production of movements. Application of this process approach to the study
of movement organization by children with normal speech and with speech
impairments may yield insights into the relationship between speech and move-
ment control processes. The results of the present study clearly indicate differences
in the rate of development of the mature form for the standing long jump.
Brought to you by BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/13/22 09:07 PM UTC

The results of this study support the need for further investigation of
qualitative differences in gross motor skills as performed by children with speech
impairments. Early instructional intervention will be facilitated by more detailed
information concerning differences and similarities between the motor perfor-
mances of children with speech impairments and children with normal speech.
Additionally, initiation of more process-oriented analysis of motor performance
may provide additional direction for the planning of instruction in motor skills
for children with speech impairments.

References
Bayley, N. (1935). The development of motor abilities during the first three years. Mono-
graph of the Society for Research on Child Development, 1, 1-26.
Bemstein, N. (1967). The coordination and regulation of movements. London: Pergamon
Press.
Bilto, W. (1941). A comparative study of certain physical abilities of children with speech
defects and children with normal speech. Journal ofspeech and Hearing Disorders,
6 , 187-203.
Bishop, J. (1992, April). Relationships between speechllanguage and motor development:
Clinical-behavioral perspectives. Paper presented at the annual convention of the
American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Indianap-
olis, IN.
Carroll, J., Fuller, G., & Lindley, K. (1989). Visual-motor ability of children with articula-
tion disorders. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 32-34.
Cermak, S., Ward, E., & Ward, L. (1986). The relationship between articulation disorders
and motor coordination in children. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy,
40, 546-550.
 Standing Long Jump 163

Clark, J.E., Phillips, S.J., & Peterson, R. (1989). Developmental stability in jumping.
Developmental Psychology, 25, 929-935.
Fein, D. (1983). The prevalence of speech and language impairments. Journal of the
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 25, 37.
Hallahan, D., & Kauffman, J. (199 1). Exceptional childredntroduction to special educa-
tion (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hammond, G. (Ed.) (1990). Cerebral control of speech and limb movements. New York:
Elsevier Science.
Jenkins, E., & Lohr, F. (1964). Severe articulation disorders and motor ability. Journal
of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 29, 286-292.
Jensen, J.L., & Phillips, S.J. (1991). Variations on the vertical jump: Individual adaptations
to changing task demands. Journal of Motor Behavior, 23(1), 63-74.
Levine, M. (1985). Pediatric examination of educational readiness at middle childhood.
Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
McLoughlin, C., & Gullo, D. (1982). Perceptual, motor, memory and qualitative elements
of language behavior: Differences between 3- and 4-year-olds performance. Percep-
tual and Motor Skills, 55, 1038.
Prins, D. (1962). Motor and auditory abilities in different groups of children with articula-
tory deviations. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 5, 161-168.
Public Law 101-476 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). (1990, October 30).
Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Brought to you by BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 02/13/22 09:07 PM UTC

Rarick, G.L. (1982). Descriptive research and process-oriented explanation of the motor
development of children. In J.A.S. Kelso & J.E. Clark (Eds.), The development of
movement control and co-ordination (pp. 275-292). New York: Wiley.
Roberton, M., & Halverson, L. (1984). Developing children-Their changing movement.
Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
Thelen, E. (1986). Treadmill-elicited skipping in seven month old infants. Child Develop-
ment, 57, 1498-1506.
Thelen, E. (1989). The (re)discovery of motor development: Learning new things from
an old field. Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 946-949.
Thelen, E., Kelso, J.A.S., & Fogel, A. (1987). Self-organizing systems in infant motor
development. Developmental Review, 7, 39-65.
Thomas, J. (1984). Motor development during childhood and adolescence. Minneapolis,
MN: Burgess.
Thomas, J. (1990). The ten cardinal principles of physical activity. The Physical Educator,
47, 169-171.
Van Riper, C., & Emerick, L. (1984). Speech correction: An introduction to speech
pathology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Van Sant, A. (1983). Development of the standing long jump. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Motor Development and Child Study Labora-
tory.
Ysseldyke, J., & Algozzine, B. (1990). Introduction to special education (2nd ed.). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.