JSAMS-446;

No. of Pages 6

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Original paper

Motor fitness in Dutch youth: Differences over a
26-year period (1980–2006)
J. Runhaar, D.C.M. Collard, A.S. Singh, H.C.G. Kemper, W. van Mechelen, M. Chinapaw ∗
EMGO Institute, Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Center, The Netherlands
Received 8 September 2008; received in revised form 20 March 2009; accepted 9 April 2009

Abstract
This study aimed to compare neuromotor fitness test scores of 9–12-year-old Dutch youth in 2006 with scores of same aged children in
1980. Body height, body weight and performance on neuromotor fitness test items were measured in 2050 Dutch children from 9 to 12 years
in 2006 and were compared with data of 2603 same aged Dutch children measured in 1980 with the same neuromotor fitness test battery.
Dutch 9–12 year olds in 2006 were significantly taller and heavier than their peers in 1980. Age- and sex-specific performance on almost all
neuromotor fitness test items was significantly worse in 2006. Thus, our data suggest that neuromotor fitness of Dutch youth has significantly
decreased over the past 26 years.
© 2009 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: MOPER fitness test; Neuromotor fitness; Children; Secular trend

1. Introduction
Low physical fitness in children has been associated
with impaired health indicators such as increased body
fatness,1–3 several cardiovascular disease risk factors4–6 and
hypertension.1,6 Therefore it is important to promote high
levels of fitness in modern youth. Only a few studies have
been published on changes in pediatric physical fitness.7
Physical fitness can be divided into neuromotor fitness (i.e.
muscle strength, flexibility, speed of movement, and coordination) and aerobic fitness. Some studies have reported
that children are not currently as physically fit as their
peers in the previous decades,8–10 while others report no
differences.7,11,12 Most of these studies focus on secular
changes in aerobic fitness rather than neuromotor fitness. As
the majority of physical activities of children involve highintensity bursts such as jumping and sprinting, a decrease in
∗ Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: josrunhaar@gmail.com (J. Runhaar),
dorine.collard@vumc.nl (D.C.M. Collard), a.singh@vumc.nl
(A.S. Singh), hcg.kemper@vumc.nl (H.C.G. Kemper),
w.vanmechelen@vumc.nl (W. van Mechelen), m.chinapaw@vumc.nl
(M. Chinapaw).

neuromotor fitness could negatively affect children in their
daily physical activity levels and in the long term their health
status.13,14
In addition, because motor skill proficiency tracks through
childhood15 it is plausible that children with poorer motor
skills may become less active adolescents with associated
poorer fitness levels. Children who are proficient at performing motor skills may participate more in the type of
activities likely to increase fitness levels. Physical activity opportunities of adolescents may thus be increased if
they are competent at performing many prerequisite motor
skills.16 Therefore, neuromotor fitness may be just as important as aerobic fitness in maintaining overall health and
function.17
The few studies on secular changes of children’s neuromotor fitness have shown little change in recent decades. In
a systematic review, Tomkinson13 recently analysed secular trends of performances of children (6–12 years) on power
and speed tests worldwide over the period 1958–2003. Power
(jumping tests) and speed test performances (sprint running
and agility running tests) remained relatively stable during the
whole period, but a trend towards decline was found since the
1980s (−0.08% to −0.25% per annum). Compared to secu-

1440-2440/$ – see front matter © 2009 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2009.04.006

Please cite this article in press as: Runhaar J, et al. Motor fitness in Dutch youth: Differences over a 26-year period (1980–2006). J Sci
Med Sport (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2009.04.006

JSAMS-446;

ARTICLE IN PRESS

No. of Pages 6

2

J. Runhaar et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Brief description of all MOPER fitness test items. In parentheses is the factor or ability indicated.
MOPER test item

Description

Score

1.

Bent-arm hang (upper body strength)

s

2.
3.

10 × 5 m run (speed and agility)
Leg lift test (trunk/leg strength)

4.

Plate tapping (eye–hand coordination and arm speed)

5.
6.

Sit and reach (trunk flexibility)
Arm pull (static arm strength)

7.
8.

Standing high jump (explosive leg strength)
6 min run (aerobic fitness)

Maximal time that eyes were kept above a
horizontal bar hanging in a bent arm position
Minimal time needed on a 10 times 5 m run
Lifting both legs 10 times as quickly as possible
from the horizontal to the vertical with extended
knees while lying
Alternatively tapping with the hand of preference as
fast as possible for 25 complete cycles between two
discs, of which the centers lay 75 cm
Maximal reach while sitting with extended knees
Maximal force pulled with preferred arm on a
dynamometer while standing
Maximal standing vertical jump height
Run a maximum distance during 6 min

lar changes in children’s aerobic fitness, reported neuromotor
changes are substantially smaller.10,18,19
Since the study of Tomkinson13 did not include data from
the Netherlands, it is unknown whether secular trends in neuromotor fitness levels of Dutch youth are comparable to these
documented secular changes. The present paper describes
age- and sex-specific neuromotor fitness of 2050 present
Dutch children aged 9–12, using the Motor performance
(MOPER) fitness test. Since Leyten20 measured MOPER fitness test performance in 2603 Dutch children in 1980, data on
changes in neuromotor fitness in Dutch youth over a 26-year
period will be given.

2. Methods
In order to compare the MOPER fitness test scores of
Dutch children in 2006 with the MOPER fitness test scores
of children in 1980 permission was given to access and analyse the Leyten data.20 The study of Leyten20 concerned a
random sample of 2603 9–12-year-old Dutch children from
32 primary schools throughout the Netherlands. A stratified
sample of regular primary schools was selected for participation, taking into account the national level of urbanisation
and social status.
Our study population enrolled in 2006 included 2050 children who volunteered to participate in the iPlay-study.21 In
January 2006, 520 Dutch primary schools were randomly
invited to participate in the study. Inclusion criteria for the
schools were (I) being a regular primary school; (II) giving PE classes twice a week; and (III) willing to appoint a
contact person for the duration of the study. The study population – children from 40 different primary schools in urban
and suburban areas throughout the Netherlands – was a good
representation of the Dutch population. The iPlay-study is
a randomised controlled trial on injury prevention in Dutch
primary school children, aged 9–12 years. Prior to the study,
all parents of the children received an information letter by
the research institute including a passive informed consent

s
s

s

cm
kg
cm
m

on the participation of their child(ren). The Medical Ethics
Committee of VU University Medical Centre approved the
study design, protocols and the passive informed consent procedure. In this study, all injured children or children with a
physical disability were excluded.
In 1980, children performed all MOPER fitness test items.
The MOPER fitness test includes the bent-arm hang test,
10 × 5 m shuttle run test, leg lift test, plate tapping test, sit
and reach test, arm pull test and standing high jump test, and
6 min run test. In Table 1 the outline of the MOPER fitness
test items are described. For a more extensive description of
the MOPER fitness test items see Kemper and Verschuur.22
In 2006, children performed seven of the eight MOPER
fitness test items. Because the iPlay-study did not focus on
improvement of endurance, the ‘6 min run test’ (aerobic fitness) was not included in 2006. Validity and reliability of
the MOPER fitness test have been shown to be acceptable in
children aged 9–18 years.20,23
Trained instructors conducted all tests during a physical
education class according to a standardised protocol that was
the same in 1980 and 2006. Tests were performed barefoot
to rule out bias by differences in footwear. Children were
vocally encouraged to perform all test elements as good as
possible.
Body height was measured in meters (m), to the nearest 0.01 m, with a portable stadiometer (Seca 214, Leicester
Height Measure; Seca GmbH & Co., Hamburg, Germany)
according to a standardised protocol. Body weight was measured in kilogram (kg), to the nearest 0.1 kg, with a digital
scale (Seca 770; Seca GmbH & Co., Hamburg, Germany).
During the body height and weight measurements children
were dressed in underwear. From body height and body
weight body mass index (BMI) was calculated to estimate
overweight and obesity.
Data analysis was completed using application software
package SPSS 14.0. All data were stratified for age (9–12
year olds) and gender. Differences between 1980 and 2006
were assessed using t-test or Kruskal–Wallis test, depending on normal distribution. Level of significance was set at

Please cite this article in press as: Runhaar J, et al. Motor fitness in Dutch youth: Differences over a 26-year period (1980–2006). J Sci
Med Sport (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2009.04.006

JSAMS-446;

ARTICLE IN PRESS

No. of Pages 6

3

1040
150 (8.1)
41.0 (9.1)
18.1 (3.0)

p < 0.05. Prevalence of overweight and obesity was calculated for the study population in 2006 using BMI and the
Cole-criteria.24,25

108
155 (7.9)
46.2 (11.3)*
19.0 (3.4)

1010
149 (7.7)
39.9 (8.8)
17.8 (2.9)

3. Results

n.a.: not available.
* Indicates significant difference between 1980 and 2006 (p < 0.05).
# Estimated BMI calculated from mean body height and mean body weight per age category. BMI = body mass index.

152
154 (7.8)*
43.8 (10.2)*
18.4 (3.2)
509
152 (7.2)*
42.5 (8.7)*
18.2 (2.9)
51
141 (5.9)
35.8 (6.2)*
17.9 (2.5)
2006
N
Body height (cm)
Body weight (kg)
BMI (kg/m2 )

370
146 (7.1)*
38.3 (8.0)*
17.8 (2.9)
361
146 (6.6)*
36.9 (7.2)*
17.2 (2.5)
53
142 (7.0)*
36.0 (7.2)*
17.7 (2.8)

447
151 (6.9)*
41.5 (8.9)*
18.1 (3.1)

1315
145 (n.a.)
35.7 (n.a.)
17.1
1288
145 (n.a.)
35.3 (n.a.)
16.7
44
153 (8.6)
42.7 (8.9)
18.3
80
152 (7.8)
41.0 (8.2)
17.9
408
150 (7.7)
39.3 (7.7)
17.5
332
140 (6.2)
31.9 (4.6)
16.3
1980
N
Body height (cm)
Body weight (kg)
BMI# (kg/m2 )

449
144 (6.7)
35.2 (6.3)
17.0
436
145 (6.4)
34.6 (5.4)
16.6
414
139 (6.5)
31.9 (5.6)
16.6

440
149 (6.7)
37.6 (6.3)
16.9

Boys
Boys
Boys
Boys
Girls
Boys

Girls

11 years
10 years
9 years

Table 2
Mean (std.) height, weight of 9–12-year-old Dutch boys and girls in 1980 and in 2006.

Girls

12 years

Girls

All

Girls

J. Runhaar et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

All data were normally distributed, except for the scores
on ‘bent-arm hang’ and ‘leg lift test’ (all age groups and
both genders). As in 1980, only performance on ‘arm pull’
was correlated with body weight (r = 0.55) in 2006. Therefore, arm pull adjusted for weight (‘arm pull adjusted’ = (‘arm
pull’/weight) × 100) was used in the analysis.
In 2006, 61% of the children attended a primary school
located in an urban area and 39% in a rural area. Both genders
were equally represented per age category in the two groups.
No differences were found per age category and gender
between children living in urban and rural areas.
Mean body height, body weight and BMI stratified for age
and gender are shown in Table 2. Compared to 1980, children were significantly taller and heavier in 2006 (except for
height of 9-year-old boys and 12-year-old girls). Prevalence
of overweight and obesity in 2006 was 13% and 3% for boys
and 15% and 3% for girls, respectively. Because only mean
body height and body weight per age category were available from the study of Leyten,20 no individual BMI could be
calculated. The estimated BMI’s from the means showed a
higher BMI in 2006 than in 1980 in all categories.
Results on the MOPER fitness test items from 1980 and
2006 are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 1. On all MOPER
tests items for all categories (age × gender) performance was
significantly worse in 2006 than in 1980, except for ‘arm pull
adjusted’ (girls) and ‘standing high jump’ (boys and girls).
Since individual scores on ‘bent-arm hang’ and ‘leg lift test’
for 12 year olds in 1980 were not available we could not
statistically test differences between 1980 and 2006 for this
age category. Median scores on ‘bent-arm hang’ and ‘leg lift
test’ are presented in Table 4 and show a decrease on ‘bentarm hang’ and an increase in ‘leg lift test’ in all categories.

4. Discussion
The aim of this study was to compare the neuromotor performance on MOPER fitness test of Dutch children
aged 9–12 with same aged children over a 26-year period
(1980–2006). Because the MOPER fitness test includes
more items of neuromotor fitness than just power and speed
tests, this study gives a rather complete insight into the
changes in neuromotor fitness in present youth. Compared to
1980, neuromotor performance on MOPER fitness test items
in 2006 was significantly worse on almost all test items for
boys and girls of all ages. This finding is of importance
because children with poorer motor skills may become less
active adolescents with associated poorer fitness levels.16
Children who are proficient at performing motor skills may

Please cite this article in press as: Runhaar J, et al. Motor fitness in Dutch youth: Differences over a 26-year period (1980–2006). J Sci
Med Sport (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2009.04.006

JSAMS-446;

No. of Pages 6

J. Runhaar et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

1980
9.5 (7.6)
44
19.0 (0.9)c
44
14.3 (1.7)
41
13.8 (1.8)
44
32.3 (5.6)b
44
59.3 (10.6)
44
34.8 (4.6)
44
b p < 0.01.
c p < 0.001.

Bent-arm hang (s)
N
10 × 5 m run (s)
N
Leg lift test (s)
N
Plate tapping (s)
N
Sit and reach (cm)
N
Arm pull adjusted (kg/kg weight)
N
Standing high jump (cm)
N
a p < 0.05.

2006
10.0 (9.6)
51
20.2 (1.9)
50
18.0 (5.6)
49
16.0 (1.7)
50
28.1 (7.3)
51
59.9 (15.4)
47
34.2 (6.3)c
50

# Since data on ‘bent-arm hang’ and ‘leg lift test’ for 12 year olds were not normally distributed in 1980 and individual scores were not available, differences in performance could not be statistically tested.

Boys

1980
24.4 (18.6)
80
18.4 (1.3)c
78
14.7 (2.8)
78
13.6 (1.5)a
80
27.8 (6.4)a
80
75.9 (14.9)a
79
35.7 (4.8)
77
1980
13.0 (11.4)c
408
19.0 (1.0)c
407
13.7 (2.1)c
402
13.7 (1.4)c
407
31.7 (6.0)c
407
61.8 (12.3)
407
33.6 (4.7)
406
1980
24.4 (18.4)c
438
18.4 (1.0)c
440
14.1 (2.3)c
425
14.2 (1.7)c
439
27.6 (5.9)c
440
74.9 (14.1) c
438
34.2 (4.8)
437
1980
11.9 (10.8)a
414
19.9 (1.1)c
414
13.8 (2.1)c
409
15.9 (1.8)
413
30.7 (5.7)b
413
61.3 (14.3)
413
30.6 (4.6)
413
1980
18.3 (14.6)c
332
19.2 (1.1)c
332
14.2 (2.3)c
332
16.5 (2.0)
332
28.4 (5.8)
332
70.2 (13.4)c
332
30.9 (4.6)
332

2006
9.9 (12.9)
53
20.9 (1.8)
52
17.8 (6.2)
50
16.1 (2.4)
53
28.4 (6.1)
53
59.3 (13.1)
51
34.9 (7.1)c
52

Boys
Boys

1980
21.5 (16.9)c
436
18.7 (1.0)c
436
14.1 (2.1)c
421
15.3 (1.8)a
436
27.6 (6.0)
436
71.2 (14.0)
436
32.7 (5.2)
436

2006
12.9 (12.1)
356
19.7 (1.5)
361
17.9 (6.4)
356
15.6 (1.8)
357
27.0 (6.4)
359
69.3 (14.9)
276
36.8 (5.7)c
358

1980
11.6 (11.6)b
449
19.6 (1.2)c
449
13.9 (2.3)c
437
14.7 (1.7)c
449
30.3 (5.7)
448
61.8 (13.0)
448
31.5 (4.7)
448

2006
9.7 (10.5)
370
20.1 (1.5)
366
17.3 (4.9)
365
15.2 (1.8)
364
30.3 (6.0)
370
63.6 (13.1)
270
35.8 (6.3)c
369

Boys
Girls

10 years

Girls
9 years

Table 3
Mean scores (std.) on the MOPER fitness test items in 9–12-year-old Dutch boys and girls in 1980 and 2006.

11 years

2006
12.5 (12.1)
444
19.4 (1.6)
442
18.4 (6.7)
433
14.8 (1.7)
441
25.4 (6.8)
440
69.5 (14.6)
378
38.7 (6.6)c
444

Girls

2006
8.8 (9.4)
504
19.8 (1.5)
503
18.0 (6.9)
504
14.4 (1.7)
508
30.2 (6.2)
499
61.2 (13.0)
405
37.2 (6.3)c
505

12 years#

2006
13.7 (12.0)
152
19.2 (1.5)
151
18.2 (7.1)
145
14.1 (1.9)
151
25.5 (7.1)
152
70.6 (14.9)
126
39.7 (6.5)c
152

Girls

2006
8.0 (7.9)
108
19.8 (1.6)
108
18.4 (6.6)
104
14.1 (1.7)
107
29.1 (6.7)
108
61.8 (12.9)
93
37.4 (6.4)b
108

4

ARTICLE IN PRESS
participate more in the type of activities likely to increase
fitness levels.
Scores on MOPER fitness test items in 2006 are within
the range of test items scores found in other studies.4,8,11 The
prevalence of overweight and obesity among the study population in 2006 are comparable to the results from a national
study on the prevalence of overweight and obesity among a
representative selection of Dutch youth during 2002–2004.26
Besides differences in performance on MOPER fitness
test items between 1980 and 2006, the present study also
indicates that today’s youth are significantly taller and heavier. Because individual data of body height and body weight
were not available from the study of Leyten,20 no statistical
comparison of individual BMI between study populations in
1980 and 2006 could be made, however the estimated mean
values suggest the same trend.
International studies suggest a negative association
between BMI and performance on neuromotor fitness
tests.1,8,13 This corresponds with our findings. For boys and
girls in the 2006 data, higher BMI was correlated with lower
performance on ‘bent-arm hang’, 10 × 5 m run’, ‘leg lift test’,
‘vertical high jump’ and ‘arm pull adjusted’ (r = 0.19–0.45).
There was no association between BMI and performance on
‘plate tapping’ and ‘sit and reach’ (r = 0.00–0.03).
An increase in BMI may both reflect an increase in fat
mass as well as in fat-free mass.13,27 An increase in fat mass
has a negative effect on fitness measures that require moving, lifting and supporting of the body against gravity.13,14,28
However, an increase in fat-free mass should enhance performance on power and strength measures.13,14 When all
overweight and obese children in the present study were
excluded from the analysis, almost all differences in performance on MOPER fitness test items between 1980 and 2006
remained significant. This finding suggests that increased
BMI cannot fully explain the inferior performance in 2006.
Tomkinson13 reported a downward trend in neuromotor fitness of children worldwide since the 1980s. Changes
in neuromotor fitness were calculated using performance
on power and speed tests. On speed test performance,
Tomkinson13 reported a decline of 0.08–0.09% per annum
for children in the 1980s and 1990s. Results from the present
study (mean decline of 0.13% per annum on ‘10 × 5 m run’)
showed that changes in speed tests performance in Dutch
youth are greater than those documented by Tomkinson.13
A possible explanation for this difference might be that
Tomkinson13 combined performance on sprint running tests
and agility sprint running tests to calculate speed performance. Sprint running tests only administer speed, while
agility sprint running tests administer both speed and agility.
If performance on both speed and agility has decreased
through the years, decrease of performance on agility sprint
running tests (as in ‘10 × 5 m run’ in the present study) will
be greater than on sprint running alone.
Tomkinson’s13 calculated performance on power tests,
included performance on vertical high jump tests. Contrary
to his results from – i.e. a decline of 0.01–.029% per annum

Please cite this article in press as: Runhaar J, et al. Motor fitness in Dutch youth: Differences over a 26-year period (1980–2006). J Sci
Med Sport (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2009.04.006

JSAMS-446;

ARTICLE IN PRESS

No. of Pages 6

J. Runhaar et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

5

Fig. 1. Mean differences in performance on MOPER fitness test items of 9–12-year-old Dutch boys and girls between 1980 and 2006 (1980 = 100).

Table 4
Median scores on ‘bent-arm hang’ and ‘leg lift test’ in 9–12-year-old Dutch boys and girls in 1980 and 2006.
9 years

10 years

Boys

Bent-arm hang
Leg lift test

Girls

12 years#

11 years

Boys

Girls

Boys

Girls

Boys

Girls

1980

2006

1980

2006

1980

2006

1980

2006

1980

2006

1980

2006

1980

2006

1980

2006

15
13.7

7
16.7

10
13.4

7
16.3

17
13.9

9
16.4

9
13.5

6
16.3

21
13.7

9
16.7

10
13.4

6
16.5

–
–

10.5
16.3

–
–

6
16.3

# Since individual data on ‘bent-arm hang’ and ‘leg lift test’ for 12 year olds were not available, median scores could not be calculated.

– differences in ‘standing high jump’ in our study showed a
mean increase in performance of 0.57% per annum. Apparently, differences in Dutch youth in this test of performance
over the period 1980–2006 are not comparable with the secular changes documented by Tomkinson.13 Because our data
only provide two snapshots of neuromotor fitness in Dutch
youth in 1980 and 2006, research results of neuromotor performance in Dutch youth from the intermediary years should
have provided a more complete picture of these changes.
Data of our study in 2006 and data of the study of Leyten20
are representative for the distribution of the Dutch population
during the measurement period regarding the level of urbanisation of the residences of participating schools. However, the
study population in 2006 included relatively more children
living in an urban residence compared to the study population of Leyten (60% vs. 48% in 1980). Thus, difference may
exist between the two populations regarding social status and
ethnicity.
Representation of children’s performance on the MOPER
fitness test was based on gender and age. State of maturation
was not measured and hence not taken into account. The last
decades the age of menarche has advanced by 3–4 months
per 10 years and the age at which boys’ voice break has
advanced by 2 months.14 Some studies suggest that the ranking of physical fitness measures by calendar age will lead to
many children being incorrectly classified.29,30 Since more
mature children perform better than less mature ones, this

suggests that children in 2006 should perform better than
same aged children in 1980, based on state of maturation
alone. In the present results, representation based on state of
maturation would presumably lead to even greater differences
in performance between 1980 and 2006, while the increase
in performance on ‘standing high jump’ would diminish.

5. Conclusion
Current results suggest that present 9–12-year-old Dutch
youth are physically not as fit as same aged children were
in 1980. Although BMI increased, this did not account
for most differences in neuromotor fitness between 1980
and 2006 in 9–12-year-old Dutch youth. As the majority of physical activities of children involve high-intensity
bursts such as jumping and sprinting, this decrease in neuromotor fitness may negatively affect children in their daily
physical activity levels and in the long term their health
status.13,14

Practical implications
• This observed decrease in neuromotor fitness of present
Dutch youth, may negatively affect their daily physical
activity levels and in the long term their health status.

Please cite this article in press as: Runhaar J, et al. Motor fitness in Dutch youth: Differences over a 26-year period (1980–2006). J Sci
Med Sport (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2009.04.006

JSAMS-446;

No. of Pages 6

6

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Runhaar et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

• To prevent poor fitness levels of present Dutch youth, an
active lifestyle during childhood should be encouraged to
obtain good physical fitness during childhood and adolescence.
• To prevent further declines in fitness levels regular screening and treatment of inadeqaute neuromotor fitness in
youth is recommended.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank C. Leyten for providing original
data from his study, making comparison with fitness test performances in 1980 possible. The iPlay-study is supported by
a grant from the Netherlands organisation for health research
and development (ZONMW), grant number 62200033.

References
1. Kim J, Must A, Fitzmaurice GM, Gillman MW, Chomitz V, Kramer
E, et al. Relationship of physical fitness to prevalence and incidence of
overweight among schoolchildren. Obes Res 2005;13:1246–54.
2. Bouziotas C, Koutedakis Y, Nevill A, Ageli E, Tsigilis N, Nikolaou
A, et al. Greek adolescents, fitness, fatness, fat intake, activity, and
coronary heart disease risk. Arch Dis Child 2004;89:41–4.
3. Rowlands AV, Eston RG, Ingledew DK. Relationship between activity
levels, aerobic fitness, and body fat in 8- to 10-yr-old children. J Appl
Physiol 1999;86:1428–35.
4. Buchheit M, Platat C, Oujaa M, Simon C. Habitual physical activity,
physical fitness and heart rate variability in preadolescents. Int J Sports
Med 2007;28:204–10.
5. Hofman A, Walter HJ. The association between physical fitness and
cardiovascular disease risk factors in children in a five-year follow-up
study. Int J Epidemiol 1989;18:830–5.
6. Thomas NE, Baker JS, Davies B. Established and recently identified
coronary heart disease risk factors in young people: the influence of
physical activity and physical fitness. Sports Med 2003;33:633–50.
7. Tomkinson GR, Olds TS. Secular changes in pediatric aerobic fitness
test performance: the global picture. Med Sport Sci 2007;50:46–66.
8. Matton L, Duvigneaud N, Wijndaele K, Philippaerts R, Duquet W,
Beunen G, et al. Secular trends in anthropometric characteristics, physical fitness, physical activity, and biological maturation in Flemish
adolescents between 1969 and 2005. Am J Hum Biol 2007;19:345–57.
9. Strong WB. Physical activity and children. Circulation 1990;81:
1697–701.
10. Tomkinson GR, Olds TS. Secular changes in aerobic fitness test performance of Australasian children and adolescents. Med Sport Sci
2007;50:168–82.
11. Malina RM. Physical fitness of children and adolescents in the United
States: status and secular change. Med Sport Sci 2007;50:67–90.
12. Jurimae T, Volbekiene V, Jurimae J, Tomkinson GR. Changes in Eurofit
test performance of Estonian and Lithuanian children and adolescents
(1992–2002). Med Sport Sci 2007;50:129–42.
13. Tomkinson GR. Global changes in anaerobic fitness test performance
of children and adolescents (1958–2003). Scand J Med Sci Sports
2007;17:497–507.

14. Tomkinson GR, Hamlin AJ, Olds TS. Secular changes in anaerobic test
performance on Australasian children and adolescents. Pediatr Exerc
Sci 2006;18:314–28.
15. Malina RM. Tracking of physical fitness and performance during
growth. In: Buenen G, Hesquiere JG, Reybrouck T, Claessens AL,
editors. Children and exercise. Stuttgart, Germany: Ferdinand Enke;
1990. p. 1–10.
16. Barnett LM, van Beurden E, Morgan PJ, Brooks LO, Beard JR. Does
childhood motor skill proficiency predict adolescent fitness? Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2008;40:2137–44.
17. Armstrong N, Welsman JR. Young people and physical activity. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; 1997. p. 99–102.
18. Macfarlane DJ, Tomkinson GR. Evolution and variability in fitness
test performance of Asian children and adolescents. Med Sport Sci
2007;50:143–67.
19. Olds TS, Ridley K, Tomkinson GR. Declines in aerobic fitness: are they
only due to increasing fatness? Med Sport Sci 2007;50:226–40.
20. Leyten C. De MOPER fitheidtest, onderzoeksverslag 9 t/m 11 jarigen
[The MOPER fitness test, research paper 9 to 11 year olds]. Haarlem:
De Vrieseborch; 1982. p. 78–83.
21. Collard DCM, Chin A Paw MJM, van Mechelen W, Verhagen EALM.
Design of the iPlay-study: ystematic development of a physical activity
injury prevention program for primary school children. Sports Med
2009, in press, 39:12.
22. Kemper HC, Verschuur R. Moper fitness test, lichamelijke
prestatiegeschiktheidstest voor lichamelijke opvoeding [Moper fitness test, physical capability for physical education]. De lichamelijke
opvoeding [Phys Educ] 1977;65:541–7.
23. Bovend’eerdt JHF, Bernink MJE, van Hijfte T, Ritmeester JW, Kemper
HCG, Verschuur R. De MOPER fitness test. Haarlem: De Vrieseborch;
1980. p. 67–68.
24. Cole TJ, Bellizzi MC, Flegal KM, Dietz WH. Establishing a standard
definition for child overweight and obesity worldwide: international
survey. Br Med J 2000;320:1240–3.
25. Hirasing RA, Fredriks AM, van Buuren S, Verloove-Vanhorick SP,
Wit JM. Toegenomen prevalentie van overgewicht en obesitas bij
Nederlandse kinderen en de signalering daarvan aan de hand van
internationale normen en nieuwe referentiediagrammen [Increased
prevalence of overweight and obesity in Dutch children, and the
detection of overweight and obesity using international criteria and
new reference diagrams]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd [Dutch J Med Sci]
2001;145:1303–8.
26. van den Hurk K, van Dommelen P, de Wilde JA, Verkerk PH, van
Buuren S, HiraSing RA. Prevalentie van overgewicht en obesitas bij
jeugdigen 4-15 jaar in de periode 2002-2004 [Prevalence of overweight
and obesity in 4 to 15 year olds in the period 2002-2004]. TNO Quality
of Life; 2006.
27. Dollman J, Olds T, Norton K, Stuart D. The evolution of fitness
and fatness in 10–11-year-old Australian schoolchildren: changes in
distributional characteristics between 1985 and 1997. Ped Exerc Sci
1999;11:108–21.
28. Huang YC, Malina RM. BMI and health-related physical fitness
in Taiwanese youth 9–18 years. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007;39:
701–8.
29. Jones MA, Hitchen PJ, Stratton G. The importance of considering biological maturity when assessing physical fitness measures in girls and
boys aged 10 to 16 years. Ann Hum Biol 2000;27:57–65.
30. Kemper HC, van Mechelen W. Physical fitness testing of children: a
European perspective. Ped Exerc Sci 1996;8:201–14.

Please cite this article in press as: Runhaar J, et al. Motor fitness in Dutch youth: Differences over a 26-year period (1980–2006). J Sci
Med Sport (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2009.04.006