Child and Family Predictors for Mastery Motivation in Children with Developmental Delays
Saved in:
| Title: | Child and Family Predictors for Mastery Motivation in Children with Developmental Delays |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Pei-Jung Wang, Hua-Fang Liao, Li-Chiou Chen, Lin-Ju Kang, Lu Lu, Karen Caplovitz Barrett |
| Source: | American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 2024 129(5):387-404. |
| Availability: | American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. P.O. Box 1897, Lawrence, KS 66044-1897. Tel: 785-843-1235; Fax: 785-843-1274; e-mail: AJMR@allenpress.com; Web site: https://meridian.allenpress.com/aaidd |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 18 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Early Childhood Education Preschool Education |
| Descriptors: | Preschool Children, Preschool Education, Developmental Delays, Child Development, Cognitive Development, Motor Development, Social Development, Learning Motivation, Family Influence, Family Involvement, Predictor Variables, Predictive Measurement, Developmental Tasks, Mastery Learning, Student Participation |
| DOI: | 10.1352/1944-7558-129.5.387 |
| ISSN: | 1944-7515 1944-7558 |
| Abstract: | Motivation is a key factor for child development, but very few studies have examined child and family predictors of both child task and perceived motivation. Thus, the three aims of this 6-month longitudinal study in preschoolers with global developmental delays (GDD) were to explore: 1) differences between task and perceived motivation in cognitive domain; 2) differences among three domains of perceived motivation: cognitive, gross motor, and social; and 3) early child and family predictors of cognitive task motivation and the three domains of perceived motivation 6 months later. Results indicated that preschoolers with GDD showed higher cognitive task motivation than cognitive perceived motivation, and lower perceived cognitive motivation than the other two perceived motivation domains. Different child and family factors predicted cognitive task motivation and the three domains of perceived motivation. Practitioners should educate caregivers on how to observe children's motivation to enhance children's active participation. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2024 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1439563 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE3xXhDedI27JYyYlJqqAnSAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIc6YGDL8xMeec7HeQIBEICBmiWrqD_GBEFdOH8ZsubKkuuTd95NiImbDCHfPu1R0lqMg8uS9JQp-RwIfJNPj67oFnO3XCOBPshqL9-k0WEaBOSODTjEzPrdLrobR5eG8DJgpw9F9mmN6M3DVKVZoGxwchKV5VPOMMAnO8SD5UIis_vpLigoTJCSe8RZuaNrEqM3z8rqH_KnPY0Gn25JwpHyA7FA4ZQ6DYaiO8Q= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0179292709;[8z1j]01sep.24;2024Aug30.01:41;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0179292709-1">Child and Family Predictors for Mastery Motivation in Children With Developmental Delays </title> <p>Motivation is a key factor for child development, but very few studies have examined child and family predictors of both child task and perceived motivation. Thus, the three aims of this 6-month longitudinal study in preschoolers with global developmental delays (GDD) were to explore: 1) differences between task and perceived motivation in cognitive domain; 2) differences among three domains of perceived motivation: cognitive, gross motor, and social; and 3) early child and family predictors of cognitive task motivation and the three domains of perceived motivation 6 months later. Results indicated that preschoolers with GDD showed higher cognitive task motivation than cognitive perceived motivation, and lower perceived cognitive motivation than the other two perceived motivation domains. Different child and family factors predicted cognitive task motivation and the three domains of perceived motivation. Practitioners should educate caregivers on how to observe children's motivation to enhance children's active participation.</p> <p>Keywords: developmental delay; motivation; child development; participation; parental education</p> <hd id="AN0179292709-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Mastery motivation (MM) is defined as a multifaceted, psychological urge that stimulates the individual's persistent attempts to master tasks that are at least moderately challenging for them personally, even if initial attempts are unsuccessful ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref1">40</reflink>]). There are at least three domains of MM: cognitive (attempts to solve tasks or problems), social (attempts to master interpersonal relationships with adults and with peers), and gross motor (attempts to master physical skills; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref2">41</reflink>]). Within each domain, task-directed persistence (a child's focused and persistent attempt to solve problems or master tasks; a focus of the present study) is commonly used as a behavioral indicator of MM, as are relevant emotional responses ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>]). MM has been identified as a key developmental concept, which should be included as a child evaluation ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref4">50</reflink>]). Several longitudinal studies have indicated that MM influences later competence in various developmental domains in children with and at risk for developmental delays ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref5">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref7">65</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref8">55</reflink>]) and executive function among children with disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref9">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>The concept of MM is similar to intrinsic motivation, as proposed by the self-determination theory ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref10">47</reflink>]). The self-determination theory proposes that people have three basic needs—relatedness, competence, and autonomy; therefore, to the extent that a situation potentially meets one or more of these needs, children's motivation could shift from amotivation to intrinsic motivation ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref11">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref12">9</reflink>]). Child and family factors associated with children's relatedness, competence, and autonomy needs may influence the level of mastery motivation.</p> <p>Similarly, the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2018) has proposed that the interaction among experiences, emotion, memory, and rewards influence the development of brain systems governing motivation. As well, both the Developmental Systems Approach (DSA; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref13">17</reflink>]) and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF; [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref14">66</reflink>]) have proposed that both child and family factors influence child motivated behaviors. In DSA, child motivation is influenced by child factors (e.g., developmental abilities and behavioral regulation), family-interaction factors (e.g., parental teaching quality, arrangement of child daily activities and learning experiences, etc.), and family-resource factors (e.g., parental health, financial resources, attitudes, and cognitive readiness, etc.). The ICF ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref15">66</reflink>]), a biopsychosocial model, also suggests there are interactions among various child factors (such as Body Function, Activity and Participation, Personal Factors) and Environmental Factors (including family factors). For example, age and gender belong to a Personal Factor component, developmental abilities belong to an Activity and Participation component, and child behavioral problems and motivation belong to a Body Function component. Therefore, according to all of these organizations, understanding both child and family predictors of mastery motivation is crucial and may help educators/therapists design programs to enhance child motivation in early childhood education/intervention ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref16">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref17">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>To assess MM in young children, two measures with adequate reliability and validity have been frequently used in previous studies. These are the Dimensions of Mastery Motivation Questionnaire (DMQ; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref18">41</reflink>]), which is rated by important caregivers or teachers in children's natural settings to measure perceived motivation in cognitive, motor, and social domains, and the individualized moderately challenging mastery tasks (IMoT) administered by professionals in laboratory settings to measure observed task motivation in the cognitive domain ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref19">59</reflink>]; Wang, Liao, et al., 2016; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref20">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>In existing research, young children with delays showed lower maternally perceived motivation in the cognitive domain than those with mental-age matched typical development, but there were no group differences in task motivation in the cognitive domain ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref21">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref23">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref24">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref25">61</reflink>]). However, it is unknown which factors were responsible for these differences in findings between task motivation and perceived motivation in the cognitive domain in young children with delays. Accordingly, we used both the DMQ and the IMoT to comprehensively assess cognitive domain of MM in young children with delays.</p> <p>A previous study has found that children with various types of disabilities showed their own strengths and weaknesses in the cognitive, gross motor, and social domains of perceived motivation measured by the DMQ. For example, children with Down syndrome were not different from children developing typically on social motivation but showed lower cognitive motivation. Children with cerebral palsy and autistic spectrum disorder showed lower gross motor and social motivation than children developing typically ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref26">56</reflink>]). Moreover, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref27">32</reflink>] proposed the 5-Step Enhancing Mastery Motivation model that emphasized the identification of strengths and weaknesses of various domains of MM and using strength domains to facilitate weak ones ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref28">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although it is important to better understand perceived motivation in children with many types of disability, little attention has been given to such motivation in children who are delayed in more than one domain of development (children with Global Developmental Disorder, or GDD). The prevalence of GDD is approximately 1-3% in pediatric practice ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref29">8</reflink>]), and children with GDD, like those with other specific disabilities, usually require intervention in multiple domains; thus, it is important to assess their motivational functioning in multiple domains. Yet, no prior studies have examined cognitive, gross motor, and social domains of perceived motivation in young children with GDD. Therefore, we explore differences among cognitive, gross motor, and social perceived motivation in young children with GDD, while acknowledging the need to also do so in other populations of children with disabilities as well. In prior research on perceived motivation, participation intensity was a child factor that was associated with total perceived persistence in children with developmental delays ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref30">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref31">49</reflink>]), cognitive ability was associated with perceived cognitive persistence ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref32">37</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref33">44</reflink>]), parents' perceived child cognitive ability was associated with total perceived persistence ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref34">61</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref35">21</reflink>]), gross motor competence was associated with gross motor perceived persistence ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref36">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref37">48</reflink>]), parentally perceived child hyperactivity/inattention problems were associated with cognitive and gross motor perceived persistence ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref38">37</reflink>]), parentally perceived child withdrawn behaviors were associated with social perceived persistence, and parentally perceived child prosocial behavior was related to all domains of perceived motivation ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref39">37</reflink>]). Child's age was a significant factor in one study ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref40">38</reflink>]), but not in another study ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref41">40</reflink>]). Child's sex was not a significant factor ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref42">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref43">40</reflink>]). Family factors associated with perceived motivation include maternal teaching behaviors correlated with total perceived persistence ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref44">60</reflink>]), maternal stress correlated with cognitive and social perceived persistence ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref45">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref46">36</reflink>]), and parental education has occasionally been associated with cognitive perceived persistence in Hungarian samples ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref47">42</reflink>]). Thus, according to previous studies, child and family factors might be associated with various domains of perceived motivation; however, research is needed to further ascertain the extent to which this is true in young children with global developmental disability in Taiwan.</p> <p>For cognitive task persistence in children with delays, the child factor found to be related is cognitive ability ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref48">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref49">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref50">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref51">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref52">55</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref53">67</reflink>]). The related family factors are maternal teaching behaviors in three concurrent studies ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref54">5</reflink>]; Gilmore, Cuskelly, Jobling et al., 2009; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref55">18</reflink>]), but not two other studies ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref56">60</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref57">67</reflink>]). Only for typically developing children, one longitudinal study has indicated that task-directed persistence (task motivation) shows nonlinear growth during early childhood, and early maternal assertive physical control is negatively predictive of such cognitive task persistence ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref58">64</reflink>]). Thus, although most of prior research with a cross-sectional design provides some information about the factors associated with perceived motivation and task motivation, additional longitudinal research is needed. Moreover, given that different findings are obtained for maternally perceived motivation versus observed task motivation in cognitive domain, it is important to understand child and family factors predicting both perceived and task motivation in children with delays.</p> <p>There is a dearth of longitudinal research investigating predictors of both child task motivation and perceived motivation in children with delays. Only two studies have found that early child or family factors significantly predicted child task motivation 6 months later in typically developing toddlers ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref59">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref60">64</reflink>]). Thus, the three aims of this 6-month prospective study of young children with GDD were: 1) to explore the difference between task motivation and perceived motivation in the cognitive domain; 2) to explore differences in perceived motivation in the cognitive, gross motor, and social domains; and 3) to explore child and family predictors of perceived motivation and/or task motivation 6 months later. We hypothesized that:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Task motivation would be higher than perceived motivation in cognitive domain.</item> <p></p> <item> Children's levels of perceived motivation would differ across cognitive, gross motor, and social domains.</item> <p></p> <item> Different child and family factors would predict cognitive task motivation and cognitive perceived motivation versus gross motor and social perceived motivation 6 months later in young children with GDD.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0179292709-3">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179292709-4">Design and Setting</hd> <p>Data for the current study were part of a 6-month observational cohort study {Time 1 [T1]: study entry; Time 2 [T2]: 6-month follow up) to examine the predictors of task and perceived motivation in northern Taiwan.</p> <hd id="AN0179292709-5">Participants</hd> <p>Children with global developmetnal delay (GDD), with an estimated prevalence of 1 to 3% in pediatric practice, show significant delay in achieving developmental milestones in two or more of the following domains: cognitive, gross/fine motor, speech/language, social, and activities of daily living (Shevell et al., 2003). Significant delay is indicated by children's performance at least two standard deviations below the mean of norm-referenced developmental tests (Shevell et al., 2003).</p> <p>A convenience sample of 72 mother-child dyads with children with GDD was recruited from hospitals and clinics after approval for the study was obtained from the research ethics committee. The inclusion criteria for participants were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>) child age between 24 to 42 months (the age range required for the IMoT); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>) child diagnosis of GDD, as confirmed by the multidisciplinary team at the Joint Evaluation Centers for Child Development; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref63">3</reflink>) child cognitive and fine motor developmental age (DA) equal to or above 15 months to enable the skill to perform the individualized moderately challenging mastery tasks); (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>) mothers take care of the child for at least 4 hours/day; and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref65">5</reflink>) mother's educational level was at least junior high school.</p> <p>The exclusion criteria were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref66">1</reflink>) child neuromotor disorders (e.g., cerebral palsy, etc.) and/or progressive disease (e.g., neuromuscular dystrophy, etc.), because the health conditions might impact the child's developmental trajectory beyond the child and family factors included in this study ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref67">51</reflink>]); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>) autism spectrum disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder because their social interaction deficit and behavior challenges may impact mother-child interactions beyond the impact of GDD ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref69">4</reflink>]), and might specifically influence MM, a key variable in this study; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>) unstable medical condition (e.g., epilepsy), severe heart disease (e.g. due to Tetralogy of Fallot), frequent hospitalization, or a surgical procedure in the past 6 months because such health conditions might impact the child's developmental trajectory beyond child and family factors measured in this study; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>) severe visual or hearing impairment because sensory impairments might influence mother-child interactions beyond the impact of GDD ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref72">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Because eight children GDD did not fit our inclusion criteria and two mothers declined to continue the laboratory observation, 62 dyads completed data collection. Among these 62 dyads, the data for nine dyads was excluded for further data analyses: at T2 five children presented delay in only one developmental domain (so they no longer qualified as children with GDD); one mother took care of her child less than 4 hours per day; and three mothers showed potential rating biases, with two mothers giving very high ratings for all DMQ items and one mother rating all items with very low scores. These ratings were considered invalid, potentially because of socially desirability biases or failure to carefully consider each item separately ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref73">41</reflink>]). These statements explaining data exclusion were during the data cleaning stage prior to all outcomes analyses. Thus, 53 dyads were considered to have valid data for analyses in this study.</p> <p>Descriptive statistics are represented in Table 1. In addition to a diagnosis of GDD, 30 children had other medical diagnoses: developmental language disorder (<emph>n</emph> = 12), prematurity (<emph>n</emph> = 4), chromosome disease (<emph>n</emph> = 4), psychomotor retardation (<emph>n</emph> = 3), failure to thrive (<emph>n</emph> = 3), other genetic diseases (<emph>n</emph> = 3), and hydrocephalus (<emph>n</emph> = 1).</p> <p>Table 1 Construct and Measures of Mastery Motivation of This Study</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <p>Regarding family characteristics (Table 1), 40 (71%) mothers graduated from college or higher. Family socioeconomic status (SES) levels were from I to IV, with I representing the highest SES ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref74">46</reflink>]). The distribution of SES levels of families was 0%, 43%, 43%, and 14% for level I to IV respectively. Thus, most participants (86%) were middle or upper middle class.</p> <hd id="AN0179292709-6">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179292709-7">Chinese Version of the Revised Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ 18-C)</hd> <p>The DMQ 18-C (Chinese language) preschool version for parents of children aged 2-6 years was used to collect data on perceived motivation ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref75">41</reflink>]). Four persistence scales were used in the present study: Cognitive Persistence (5 items; e.g., tries to complete toys like puzzles even if they are hard), Gross Motor Persistence (5 items; e.g., tries to do well in physical activities even when they are challenging), Social Persistence With Adults (5 items; e.g., tries hard to get adults to understand him or her), and Social Persistence With Children (6 items; e.g., tries to get included when other children are playing). Acceptable internal consistency (<emph>Cronbach's α</emph> ≥.70), test-retest reliability (<emph>r</emph> =.73–.89), inter-rater reliability (<emph>ICC</emph>. 65–.86), and construct validity of the DMQ 18 preschool version in various countries have been demonstrated in prior research (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref76">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>The DMQ 18-C was translated from the English DMQ 18, back translated to English, checked, and refined. Prior research has affirmed its measurement invariance in relation to the English version. The measure includes 39 items, each using a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all like this child) to 5 (very typical). The persistence score for each scale was obtained by averaging appropriate items ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref77">41</reflink>]). Higher scores indicate higher motivation. The Social Persistence score was the average score of two scale scores: Social Persistence With Adults and Social Persistence With Children. The Total Persistence score was the average score of the four persistence scales. Based on the preliminary norms for the parent-rated preschool version of the DMQ, the mean (<emph>SD</emph>) of the cognitive perceived persistence score is 3.43 (0.80), gross motor perceived persistence score is 3.80 (0.77), and social perceived persistence score is 3.61 (0.78). Therefore, preschoolers with cognitive perceived persistence score below 2.63, gross motor perceived persistence score below 3.03, and/or social perceived persistence score below 2.83 will be classified as "possibly atypical or atypical" for that category of persistence ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref78">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although all three perceived persistence scores are important domains of motivation to study because they represent core domains of children's daily participation and school readiness in early childhood education (Fang &amp; Chung, 2022; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref79">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref80">26</reflink>]), the cognitive perceived persistence is also important as one of the outcome variables to compare to cognitive task persistence, which is a cognitively oriented mastery motivation test. We used the General Competence scale of the DMQ 18-C, as a measure of the child's ability, rather than motivation, as perceived by their mothers (range 1–5; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref81">41</reflink>]). We viewed mother's perceived child ability as a family factor, rather than a child factor, given that it was mothers' perception of ability rather than a direct assessment of child ability. Higher scores indicate higher maternally perceived child ability.</p> <hd id="AN0179292709-8">Revised Individualized Moderately Challenging Mastery Tasks (IMoT)</hd> <p>The cognitive task persistence score, used as the outcome variable measuring task motivation in the cognitive domain, was measured by the IMoT ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref82">59</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref83">58</reflink>]). The ImoT uses two toy sets (puzzle and cause-effect toys) to examine cognitive-oriented MM in 15-48 month-old children ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref84">59</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref85">58</reflink>]). Good test-retest reliability (<emph>ICC</emph>. 80–.86), inter-rater reliability (<emph>ICC</emph>. 95–.98), and concurrent validity with DA (<emph>r</emph> =.32, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.01) were found in children with DD ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref86">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Eight puzzle toys and seven cause-effect toys were used, varying in assumed difficulty level from easy for children of 1.5 years DA to difficult for children of 4 years DA. The assumed difficulty levels of the puzzle and cause-effect tasks were estimated from the average of the child's cognitive and fine motor DA based on a standardized developmental test (i.e., the CDIIT, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref87">63</reflink>]). Then, the tester selected specific puzzle and cause-effect toys for each of the three assumed difficulty levels (easy, moderately challenging, and hard) for each child based on the CDIIT DA for each child ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref88">59</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref89">58</reflink>]). For example, for a child with a DA of 20–24 months, puzzle levels 2 (15-19 months), 3 (20-24 months), and 4 (25-29 months) would be presented that order. The test procedure would continue until at least one trial with actual moderate difficulty level was identified for both puzzle and cause-effect tasks. The actual difficulty level of a task was based on the child's success in completing parts of that task during each 3-minute trial, and it was defined as follows: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>) easy task: child completed all solutions within 1.5 minutes; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref91">2</reflink>) moderate challenge task: child completed at least two solutions but not all solutions within 1.5 minutes; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref92">3</reflink>) hard task: child completed less than two solutions within 1.5 minutes ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref93">59</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref94">58</reflink>]). For each individual child, at least one actual moderate difficulty level was identified for both the puzzle and cause-effect tasks. The cognitive task persistence score for one actual moderate difficulty trial (3-min) was calculated as the number of 5-second intervals in which children showed task-directed behaviors in the video records. Then, cognitive task persistence scores were averaged by persistence score for the moderate puzzle and cause-effect tasks (range 0–36 intervals), and higher scores indicate higher motivation. The detailed IMoT procedure was described in [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref95">59</reflink>].</p> <hd id="AN0179292709-9">Comprehensive Developmental Inventory for Infants and Toddlers (CDIIT)</hd> <p>We used developmental age (DA) for the Cognitive, Gross Motor, Fine Motor, Social subtests of the CDIIT to represent children's abilities. The CDIIT is a diagnostic developmental test with a norm sample of 3703 Taiwanese children aged 3-72 months. It has six developmental subtests (Cognitive, Language, Gross Motor, Fine Motor, Social, and Self-Help; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref96">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref97">63</reflink>]). The CDIIT has acceptable test-retest reliability (<emph>ICC</emph>. 89–.99), inter-rater reliability (<emph>ICC</emph>. 76–1.00) and validity ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref98">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref99">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref100">63</reflink>]). The tester administered all the Cognitive and Motor subtests and some items of the Language subtests in standardized setting. Some items of Language subtest and all items in the subdomains of Social (e.g., interpersonal, affection, self-responsibility) subtests were reported by the mothers. Each test item is scored 0 or 1, where 1 indicates success during the test or success based on mother-report. Developmental age and developmental quotients in all domains are based on norms in the CDIIT manual.</p> <hd id="AN0179292709-10">Chinese Version of the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1.5-5 (CBCL-C)</hd> <p>We used the Attention Problems scale and Withdrawn scale of the CBCL-C to assess children's attentional problem behaviors and withdrawn behaviors. The CBCL-C has seven syndrome scales with acceptable reliability and validity ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref101">2</reflink>]). The mothers rated whether each item is not true (score = 0), somewhat or sometimes true (score = 1), or very true or often true (score = 2), now or in the past 2 months. The score range of the attentional problem scale is 0–10 and withdrawn scale is 0–16. A higher score indicates more problem behaviors.</p> <hd id="AN0179292709-11">Chinese Version of the Assessment of Preschool Children's Participation (APCP-C)</hd> <p>The Participation Diversity and Participation Intensity scores were measured by the APCP-C for children aged 2-5.9 years. The APCP-C has been translated from the English APCP with acceptable reliability and good convergent validity with the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref102">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref103">30</reflink>]). The APCP-C includes 45 items rated by interviewing mothers about children's participation in four types of activity: Play, Skill Development, Active Physical Recreation, and Social. For each item, mothers indicated whether or not their child participated in the activity and how often their child participated in that activity. The participation diversity score was calculated as the number of activities in which mothers said children participated in the past 4 months (yes answers) divided by 45 and multiplied by 100% (range 0–100%). For the items with "yes" answers, mothers further reported how often the child participated in that activity on a 7-point Likert scale (e.g., 1 = "once over the last 4 months" to 7 = "once daily or more") or "no answer" with score 0. The participation intensity score was the average intensity of all items (range 0–7). Higher scores indicate higher participation diversity and intensity ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref104">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref105">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179292709-12">Chinese Version of Parenting Stress Index—Short Form (PSI-SF-C)</hd> <p>We used the total stress score from the PSI-SF-C to indicate maternal stress. The PSI-SF has acceptable internal consistency (<emph>Cronbach's alpha</emph> =.68–.85) and acceptable test-retest reliability (<emph>ICC</emph>.68–.85). The PSI-SF is a questionnaire designed to assess parentally perceived stress in the parent-child interaction system ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref106">1</reflink>]). It consists of 36 items with a five-point Likert scale (1 = I strongly agree to 5 = I strongly disagree) with scores ranging from 0–180 ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref107">45</reflink>]). Higher scores indicate greater stress. Scores higher than 115 indicate clinically significant levels of stress ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref108">1</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179292709-13">Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS)</hd> <p>We used maternal total scores from the NCATS as the maternal teaching score. The NCATS has good test-retest reliability (score range from 0 to 50), inter-rater reliability (above 80% agreement between certified testers and the trainer; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref109">52</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref110">60</reflink>]), acceptable concurrent validity of NCATS with Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment scores ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref111">53</reflink>]), moderate convergent validity between NCATS and Maternal Behavioral Rating Scale ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref112">7</reflink>]), and discriminative validity between mothers of children with and without motor delays ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref113">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>The NCATS has been widely used to measure quality of mother-child interaction in a standardized setting for children aged 0-36 months ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref114">52</reflink>]). To obtain this measure, a certified observer rated the presence or absence of 73 behaviors on a yes/no scale while the mother was teaching a task just beyond the child's developmental capability. The four NCATS maternal subscales (sensitivity to cues, response to child's distress, social-emotional growth fostering, and cognitive growth fostering) were summed to obtain the maternal total score with a possible range from 0 to 50 ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref115">52</reflink>]). Higher maternal total scores indicate higher quality of maternal interactive behavior in a teaching context ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref116">52</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179292709-14">Procedure</hd> <p>All mother-child dyads were assessed at study entry (T1) and at the 6-month follow-up (T2) by the same pediatric physical therapist (first author). At T1, a home (or sometimes laboratory visit) was arranged to collect basic demographic information (i.e., maternal education, family income, and socioeconomic status identified by father's occupation and education) and the PSI-SF-C, CBCL-C, APCP-C, and CDIIT. Then, all dyads were invited to the laboratory for an approximately 90-min session to complete data collection of IMoT, DMQ 18-C, and NCATS. After a warmup period, each child's task motivation and mother-child teaching behaviors were observed and recorded using two cameras. While the tester conducted the IMoT, the mother rated the DMQ 18-C without knowing the IMoT results. The same procedures were conducted again at T2.</p> <hd id="AN0179292709-15">Data Reduction and Analysis</hd> <p>The main dependent variables were cognitive task persistence measured by the IMoT and cognitive, gross motor, and social perceived persistence. In addition, the sum of these perceived motivation domain scores was calculated to create total perceived persistence. All perceived motivation (persistence) scores were measured by mothers' ratings on the DMQ 18-C (Table 1). For our study purposes, the potential predictors, based on previous studies, were T1 child factors (age, sex, attention problem, withdrawn behavior, cognitive ability, gross motor ability, fine motor ability, social ability, participation diversity, and intensity) and family factors (mother's perceived child ability, maternal stress, maternal score in teaching, maternal education). Regarding family demographics, mothers reported their own education levels using a 7-point scale, with 1 indicating illiteracy, 2 = primary school, 3 = junior high school, 4 = senior high school, 5 = college, 6 = bachelor's degree, and 7 = postgraduate degree. These levels comprised the maternal education score. Family income was coded as two levels, with 1 indicating &lt; 600,000 NTD/year and 2 ≧600,000 NTD/year. All the outcome variables and possible predictors were examined for normality and statistically analyzed, using IBM SPSS software (version 25; Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2 Characteristics of Children With Global Developmental Delay and Their Mothers (<emph>N</emph> = 53)</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <p>For our first aim, to explore the difference between task and perceived motivation, Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used for variables with non-normal distribution, and paired <emph>t</emph> tests were used for variables with normal distribution. Given that cognitive task persistence and cognitive perceived persistence scores were on different scales, we standardized each score and used the resulting <emph>z</emph> scores when conducting the within-subject comparisons between these scores. For the second aim: to explore differences between the three domains of perceived MM in this population, one-way repeated measures ANOVAs and paired <emph>t</emph> tests were used to examine the differences among the cognitive, gross motor, and social domains of perceived motivation in young children with GDD at Time 2.</p> <p>For our third aim, to explore child and family predictors of perceived and/or task motivation, partial correlations and Spearman correlations were used to examine the associations between independent variables and the five outcome variables after controlling for child age. Then, stepwise regression models were conducted to examine the significant predictors of the five outcome variables respectively, after considering the contribution of all other predictors. Significant independent variables (significance level: <emph>α</emph> &lt;.05, two-tailed) in the bivariate correlation tests were entered into regression model as independent variables. If there were several models, the final model was determined by the significant <emph>β and F</emph> values, and significant <emph>F</emph> change, which indicated whether these additional variables significantly improved on the previous model.</p> <hd id="AN0179292709-16">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0179292709-17">Level of Mastery Motivation of Children With GDD</hd> <p>For task motivation, all children demonstrated task persistence duration of more than 17.5 intervals, almost half of the testing period. For perceived motivation, 40%, 38%, and 36% of children had cognitive perceived persistence score, gross motor perceived persistence score, and social perceived persistence score, respectively, classified into the "possibly atypical or atypical category." Twenty children with GDD showed typical perceived motivation in all cognitive, gross motor, and social domains when comparing to preliminary norms ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref117">41</reflink>]). The number of young children with GDD who had low perceived motivation in one, two, or three domains were nine, 15, and eight, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0179292709-18">Mastery Motivation Characteristics of Children With GDD</hd> <p>Table 3 presents the comparisons of cognitive perceived motivation and cognitive task motivation in young children with GDD, and differences among cognitive, gross motor, and social perceived motivation. These young children with GDD were found to show significantly higher task motivation than perceived motivation in the cognitive domain (<emph>z</emph> = 3.15, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001, Wilcoxon test; Table 2). Regarding the three domains of perceived motivation, there were significant differences (<emph>F</emph> [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref118">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref119">53</reflink>] = 5.96, <emph>p</emph> =.014, η<sups>2</sups> =.94). We further used paired <emph>t</emph> tests to make pairwise comparisons, which revealed that the cognitive perceived persistence scores were significantly lower than gross motor or social perceived persistence scores. There was no significant difference between gross motor and social perceived persistence scores.</p> <p>Table 3 Mastery Motivation Characteristics in Young Children With Global Developmental Delay (<emph>N</emph> = 53)</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <hd id="AN0179292709-19">Stepwise Regression Results</hd> <p>Table 4 presents the relationships between potential child and family predictors and the five outcome variables, after controlling for child age.</p> <p>Table 4 Correlation Coefficients Between Child and Family Factors and Children's Task Motivation and Perceived Motivation (<emph>N</emph> = 53)</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <p>The stepwise regression results are presented in Table 5. The best fitting model is in bold font. Child fine motor ability (<emph>B</emph> =.61; 95% <emph>CI</emph> =.35−.86) was the only predictor that significantly predicted cognitive task persistence, explaining 29% of the variance. Two family predictors—mother's perceived child ability (<emph>B</emph> =.35; 95% <emph>CI</emph> =.13 −.66) and maternal education (<emph>B</emph> = −.28; 95% <emph>CI</emph> = −.43 – −.12)—and one child predictor, participation intensity (<emph>B</emph> =.38; 95% <emph>CI</emph> =.03 −.73), significantly predicted cognitive perceived persistence, explaining 43% of the variance. Mother's perceived child ability (<emph>B</emph> =.50; 95% <emph>CI</emph> =.26 −.75) significantly predicted gross motor perceived persistence, explaining 23% of the variance. Child social ability (<emph>B</emph> =.03; 95% <emph>CI</emph> =.01 –.05) and child withdrawn behavior (<emph>B</emph> = −.08, 95% <emph>CI</emph> = −.14 – −.01) significantly predicted social perceived persistence, explaining 21% of the variance.</p> <p>Table 5 Child and Family Predictors for Later Task and Perceived Motivation in Young Children With Global Developmental Delays</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <p>For total perceived persistence, one family predictor, maternal education (<emph>B</emph> = −.32; 95% <emph>CI</emph> = −.27 — −.04) and two child predictors, social ability (<emph>B</emph> =.25; 95% <emph>CI</emph> =.00 −.03) and participation intensity (<emph>B</emph> =.31; 95% <emph>CI</emph> =.04 −.58), were significant, explaining 38% of the variance. We decided to include mother's perceived child ability in the best model even though it did not reach a significant level (<emph>β</emph> =.19, <emph>p</emph> =.15) because mother's perceived child ability had high bivariate correlation coefficient with total persistence (<emph>r</emph> =.43) and the low <emph>p</emph> value could be considered as trending toward statistical significance, particularly in studies with small sample size ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref120">54</reflink>]). Therefore, there were four child predictors and two family predictors in the final model.</p> <hd id="AN0179292709-20">Discussion</hd> <p>To our best of knowledge, this is the first longitudinal study to examine child and family predictors for both task motivation and perceived cognitive, social, and gross motor motivation in toddlers with GDD. The results supported our hypothesis that the young children with GDD would show higher task motivation than perceived motivation in the cognitive domain. Moreover, mothers reported lower cognitive perceived motivation than other domains of perceived MM in their young children with GDD. We also found different child and family predictors for each of the outcome variables, with only fine motor skill predicting later cognitive task motivation; mother's perceived child ability, maternal education, and child participation all significantly predicting cognitive perceived persistence; mother's perceived child ability predicting gross motor perceived persistence; and child social ability and child withdrawn behavior significantly predicting perceived social persistence. These findings highlight the importance of considering multiple child and family factors when making decisions about how to intervene with children with delays in multiple domains, suggesting that helping children develop better fine motor skills might help them stay motivated when engaging in tasks requiring such skills, whereas helping them feel comfortable interacting with peers may be more helpful in making them motivated in the social domain.</p> <p>Our finding of lower perceived motivation than task motivation in young children with GDD was similar to previous studies that examined children with specific types of disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref121">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref122">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref123">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref124">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref125">61</reflink>]). In the present study, we also found that young children with GDD were perceived to have lower cognitive perceived persistence than gross motor and social perceived persistence. It could be that children's cognitive limitations are more salient to parents and/or more concerning to them relative to other domains of development. Further research is needed to better understand the basis for this finding, especially given that GDD requires that at least two domains of development be delayed. Such research could inform interventions aimed at helping parents recognize areas of strength and growth in all domains of development, as well as methods of enhancing areas of growth.</p> <p>Cognitive task motivation and cognitive perceived motivation both were devised to measure the cognitive domain of MM. We found that the best predictors were quite different for these two outcome variables. Why was child fine motor ability the best predictor of cognitive task motivation, whereas mothers' perceived child ability, maternal education, and child participation intensity were the best predictors of cognitive perceived motivation? One obvious explanation for the relation between fine motor skill and task motivation is that the tasks required such skills (such as grasping and eye-hand coordination); thus, children who had poor fine motor skills would find the tasks difficult to perform and would be more likely to give up. Moreover, in keeping with self-determination theory, children who have higher abilities are likely to have higher self-efficacy and, therefore, show higher task motivation ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref126">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref127">47</reflink>]). Similarly, maternally perceived cognitive persistence would be based on mothers' recollection of their children's persistence on the cognitive tasks also used as a basis for their perceptions of their children's abilities. There is a robust literature suggesting that adults often have a hard time distinguishing cognitive persistence from cognitive competence ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref128">14</reflink>]; Gilmore et al., 2011; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref129">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref130">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref131">61</reflink>]). In addition, perceived mastery motivation measures likely reflected not only child characteristics but also maternal and family factors, given that they were rated by the mother based primarily on her experience with her child in the home setting. Thus, cognitive task motivation, which was measured directly in the child, might be influenced primarily by child factors, and perceived motivation might be predicted by more family factors.</p> <p>More surprising was the finding that maternal education was negatively predictive of their perceptions of their children's cognitive perceived motivation. However, one possible reason for these results was that more educated mothers might have had higher achievement expectations and higher expectations for persisting in the face of challenge for their children. Moreover, like other mothers, they may have struggled to distinguish children's abilities from motivation, such that higher expectations would be associated with poorer ratings on both. There is some evidence of this in Asian mothers ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref132">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>We also found that child participation intensity predicted both cognitive and total perceived motivation. Although child participation intensity is conceptualized as a child factor in ICF, it is more like a family factor, given that it is based solely on maternal report. In addition, family context is likely to play a crucial role in child participation. Toddlers with delays rely on their family and community resources to afford them the opportunity to participate in various activities ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref133">66</reflink>]). Family daily activity arrangements would influence children's participation and motivation (Guralinick, 2020). Perceived motivation, if viewed as a type of participation construct, would be influenced by availability, accessibility, affordability, accommodability, and acceptability of environmental resources ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref134">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Mothers' perception of child ability predicted total, cognitive, and gross motor perceived motivation, but not social perceived motivation (Table 5). Although it is not clear why social perceived motivation is different from other motivation domains of the DMQ, one possible reason was the content of the General Competence scale that was used to indicate perceived child ability. The five items of that scale are relevant to children's ability to learn tasks that have cognitive and/or motor aspects (e.g., solve problems quickly or is very good at doing most things); however, no items related to social interaction. Table 5 demonstrates that child social ability was the significant family predictor of perceived social motivation. As we mentioned previously, all items of the CDIIT social subtest were reported by mothers, and all related to social interaction skill with others. Thus, it appears that there is domain specificity to the relation between perceived child ability and perceived child motivation, which has important implications for intervention with parents of children with different domains of developmental delay. Findings from the present study show that mothers' perception of their child abilities predicted their child later MM. It seems possible that mothers who perceived their children to be less capable "protected" their children from exposure to tasks they felt were too difficult for their children. For children, less exposure to a variety of learning experiences, including challenging ones, might decrease comfort with and motivation to complete challenging tasks (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2018; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref135">57</reflink>]). This, in turn, could possibly lead to lower motivation of children in the future.</p> <p>In this study, we found that maternal score in teaching and maternal stress did not predict MM. One possible reason was that 27 (51%) children had other important caregivers during the daytime, such as preschool educators or educarers in child developmental centers. Children's mothers were not the only important caregiver, and the teaching quality in natural settings might not be the same as in the standardized NCATS testing setting. Besides, all 53 dyads received free regular ECI services in hospitals in National Health Insurance System, and mothers of children with GDD were reported to be satisfied with being supported and respected by family-centered service in Taiwan ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref136">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref137">34</reflink>]). Thus, mothers' relatively low stress might be due to sufficient psychological support from Taiwan's ECI services. This support from ECI services might also mean that the service providers were important unmeasured influences on children's motivation. Toddlers showed a positive developmental trajectory of MM over the toddler age period, with gradually increasing motivation ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref138">64</reflink>]). Given that ECI practitioners are trained to promote positive development, it seems possible that their interventions had greater impact on motivation than maternal teaching practices. The possibility that ECI services might explain why maternal teaching scores and maternal stress did not predict child MM deserves further study.</p> <p>It is interesting that we found that different child factors and family factors predict later perceived motivation in specific domains in toddlers with GDD. As we mentioned previously, mothers of children with global delays frequently perceived their child to have low motivation based on their child capabilities, and Taiwanese mothers with higher education level usually are more focused on children's learning capability in the cognitive domain than the motor and social domains. In contrast, children with more withdrawal behaviors and low social ability, as rated by their mothers. might be less likely to be included in social activities and show low interest in getting others to understand them. Such behavioral characteristics may lead them not to initiate, and to participate less in, social interaction activity, further impeding social development ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref139">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Some limitations of this study were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref140">1</reflink>) a small sample size; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref141">2</reflink>) a potential for an expectation bias and/or shared method variance given that the CDIIT, NCATS, and IMOT were tested by the same tester and the other measures were reported on by the same mothers; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref142">3</reflink>) detailed information about 4-hour daily family activities was not collected; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref143">4</reflink>) other potential child factors (e.g., inhibitory control and sensory process difficulties; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref144">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref145">29</reflink>]) and family factors (e.g., maternal self-efficacy and family satisfaction; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref146">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref147">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref148">38</reflink>]) were not examined in this study. Therefore, future larger scale studies to explore more child and family factors are needed; and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref149">5</reflink>) results might only generalize to middle to upper SES Asian populations because of sample homogeneity and potential ethnic differences in MM ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref150">41</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0179292709-21">Conclusions</hd> <p>Young children with GDD showed significantly lower perceived motivation than task motivation in the cognitive domain. Moreover, they were perceived to be lower in cognitive motivation domain than gross motor and social motivation domain. Regarding the prediction of later task and perceived motivation in toddlers with GDD, child factors predicted cognitive task motivation but more family factors predicted cognitive perceived motivation. Child participation intensity in daily activities and mother's perceived child abilities are as important as child developmental abilities for predicting MM. Different child and family factors predicted cognitive, gross motor, and social domains of perceived motivation.</p> <p>Regarding clinical applications, practitioners should collaborate with parents to identify their child's strengths and weaknesses, elicit child curiosity, and encourage children's playfulness while doing something challenging to enhance children's participation in daily activities across multiple domains.</p> <p> <emph>The authors appreciate all the families of children with global developmental delay in northern Taiwan who participated in the study. We truly appreciate Professor George. A. Morgan's great support for academic consultation, and Professor Ai-Wen Hwang's great support for completing the Chinese translation about DMQ. We also thank all medical staff members for their assistance in the recruitment and referral process.</emph> </p> <p> <emph>This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institutional Review Board of National Taiwan University Hospital (IRB#201409045RINA)</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>This article's findings are partially supported by a scholarship from the National Taiwan University Children and Family Research Center, the School and Graduate Institute of Physical Therapy, and the Taiwan ICF Association. The writing of this paper was supported by a research grant to Dr. Wang from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST-111-2410-H-468-021), Taiwan.</emph> </p> <p> <emph>The authors completed the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interests. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article.</emph> </p> <ref id="AN0179292709-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref61" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abidin, R. R. (1995). Parenting Stress Index. Assessment Resources.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref62" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Achenbach, T. M. (2000). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist 1.5-5. University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barrett, K. C., &amp; Morgan, G. A. (2018). Mastery motivation: Retrospect, present, and future directions. In Elliot A. (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (Vol. 5, pp. 2–39). Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref64" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Blacher, J., Baker, B. L., &amp; Kaladjian, A. (2013). Syndrome specificity and mother-child interactions: Examining positive and negative parenting across contexts and time. Journal of Autism and Development Disorder, 43, 761–774. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1605-x">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1605-x</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref54" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Blair, C., Greenberg, M., &amp; Crnic, K. (2001). Age-related increases in motivation among children with mental retardation and MA-and CA-matched controls. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 106(6), 511–524. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1352/0895-8017(2001)106%3C0511:ARIIMA%3E2.0.CO;2">http://dx.doi.org/10.1352/0895-8017(2001)106%3C0511:ARIIMA%3E2.0.CO;2</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref144" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Blasco, P. M., Acar, S., Guy, S., Saxton, S., Duvall, S., &amp; Morgan, G. (2020). Executive function in infants and toddlers born low birth weight and preterm. Journal of Early Intervention, 42(4), 1–17. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053815120921946">http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053815120921946</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref112" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chiu, W. Y., Kang, L. J., Lin, C. S., &amp; Hwang, A. W. (2018). Convergent and discriminant validity between the Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale and the Maternal/Child Behavior Rating Scale in children with developmental delay. Bulletin of Early Intervention, 1, 23–41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref29" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Choo, Y. Y., Agarwal, P., How, C. H., &amp; Yeleswarapu, S. P. (2019). Developmental delay: Identification and management at primary care level. Singapore Medical Journal, 60(3), 119–123. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2019025">http://dx.doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2019025</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref12" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cook, D. A., &amp; Artino A. R. Jr, (2016). Motivation to learn: An overview of contemporary theories. Medical Education, 50(10), 997–1014. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.13074">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.13074</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fung, W. K., &amp; Chung, K. K. H. (2022). Association between children's home play opportunity and school readiness: Object and social mastery motivation as mediators? Early Education and Development, 34(6), 1476–1487. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2022.2153354</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilmore, L. (2018). Understanding and supporting student motivation for learning. In Deb S. (Ed.), Positive schooling and child development (pp. 69–92). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilmore, L., &amp; Cuskelly, M. A. (2009). A longitudinal study of motivation and competence in children with Down syndrome: Early childhood to early adolescence. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 53(5), 484–492. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01166.x">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01166.x</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilmore, L., &amp; Cuskelly, M. (2011). Observational assessment and maternal reports of motivation in children and adolescents with Down syndrome. American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 116, 153–164.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilmore, L., Cuskelly, M., &amp; Hayes, A. (2003). A comparative study of mastery motivation in young children with Down syndrome: Similar outcomes, different processes? Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47, 181–190.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilmore, L., Cuskelly, M., Jobling, A., &amp; Hayes, A. (2009). Maternal support for autonomy: Relationships with persistence for children with Down syndrome and typically developing children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1023–1033. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2009.02.005">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2009.02.005</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glenn, S., Dayus, B., Cunningham, C., &amp; Horgan, M. (2001). Mastery motivation in children with Down syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 7(2), 52–59. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3104/reports.114">http://dx.doi.org/10.3104/reports.114</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guralnick, M. J. (2020). Applying the developmental systems approach to inclusive community-based early intervention programs, process and practice. Infants and Young Children, 33(3), 173–183.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hauser-Cram, P. (1996). Mastery motivation in toddlers with developmental disabilities. Child Development, 67(1), 236–248. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131698">http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131698</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hauser-Cram, P., Warfield, M. E., Shonkoff, J. P., Krauss, M. W., Sayer, A., &amp; Upshur, C. C. (2001). Children with disabilities: A longitudinal study of child development and parent well-being. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 66, 1–126.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hauser-Cram, P., Woodman, A. C., &amp; Heyman, M. (2014). Early mastery motivation as a predictor of executive function in young adults with developmental disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 119(6), 536–551. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7588-119.6.536</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, H.-H., Sun, T.-H., Lin, C.I., Chen, Y.R. (2017). Contextual factors and mastery motivation in young children with and without cerebral palsy: a systematic review. Frontiers in Pediatric, 5, 224.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, S. Y., Chang, C. Y., Wang, P. J., &amp; Tang, S. C. (2022). Characteristics of mastery motivation and its relationship with parenting stress in toddlers with language delay. Acta psychologica, 230, 103769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103769</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang, A. W., Liao, H. F., Chen, P. C., Hsieh, W. S., Simeonsson, R. J., Weng, L. J., &amp; Su, Y. N. (2014). Applying the ICF-CY framework to examine biological and environmental factors in early childhood development. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 113(5), 303–312. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2011.10.004">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2011.10.004</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang, A. W., Weng, L. J., &amp; Liao, H. F. (2010). Construct validity of the Comprehensive Developmental Inventory for Infants and Toddlers. Pediatrics International, 52(4), 598–606. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-200X.2010.03102.x">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-200X.2010.03102.x</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Imms, C., Adair, B., Keen, D., Ullenhag, A., Rosenbaum, P., &amp; Granlund, M. (2016). 'Participation': A systematic review of language, definitions, and constructs used in intervention research with children with disabilities. Developmental Medicine &amp; Child Neurology, 58(1), 29–38. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12932">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12932</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Józsa, K., &amp; Barrett, K. C. (2018). Affective and social mastery motivation in preschool as predictors of early school success: A longitudinal study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45(4), 81–92. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.05.007">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.05.007</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kang, L. J., Chen, C. L., Chen, L. J., Chen, H. J., &amp; Hwang, A. W. (2016). Exploration of parental and therapists' perceptions for the family-centeredness of pediatric rehabilitation services. Taiwan Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 44(4), 179–186. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.6315/2016.44(4)02">http://dx.doi.org/10.6315/2016.44(4)02</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kang, L. J., Hwang, A. W., Palisano, R. J., King, G. A., Chiarello, L. A., &amp; Chen, C. L. (2017). Validation of the Chinese version of the Assessment of Preschool Children's Participation for children with physical disabilities. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 20(5), 266–273. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17518423.2016.1158746">http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17518423.2016.1158746</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, H. Y. (2020). Relationship between mastery motivation and sensory processing difficulties in South Korean children with developmental coordination disorder. Occupational Therapy International, 2020. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/6485453">http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/6485453</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, G., Law, M., Petrenchik, T. (2006). Assessment of Preschool Children's Participation (APCP). CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research, McMaster University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurt, M., &amp; Simsek, T. T. (2021). Motivation and motivation-related factors in children with disabilities. Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine, 14(1), 127–132. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/PRM-200711">http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/PRM-200711</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liao, H. F., Jozsa, K., Wang, P. J., Blasco, P., &amp; Morgan, G. (2021). Understanding and supporting mastery motivation in everyday activities: a focus on early childhood intervention. Journal of Psychological and Educational Research, 29(2), 150–173.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liao, H. F., &amp; Pan, Y. L. (2005). Test–retest and inter-rater reliability for the comprehensive developmental inventory for infants and toddlers diagnostic and screening tests. Early Human Development, 81(11), 927–937. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2005.07.008">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2005.07.008</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liao, H. F., &amp; Wu, P. F. (2017). Early childhood inclusion in Taiwan. Infants &amp; Young Children, 30(4), 320–327. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000102">http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000102</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liao, H.-F., Wang, P.-J., Huang, S.-Y., Ramakrishnan, J., &amp; Hwang, A.-W. (2020). Using DMQ18 in early intervention and with school children who have special needs. In Morgan G. A., Liao H.-F., &amp; Józsa K. (Eds.), Assessing mastery motivation in children using the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ) (pp. 187–224). Szent István University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Majnemer, A., Shevell, M., Law, M., Poulin, C., &amp; Rosenbaum, P. (2010). Level of motivation in mastering challenging tasks in children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine &amp; Child Neurology, 52(12), 1120–1126. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03732.x">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03732.x</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Majnemer, A., Shikako-Thomas, K., Lach, L., Shevell, M., Law, M., &amp; Schmitz, N. (2013). Mastery motivation in adolescents with cerebral palsy. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(10), 3384–3392. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.07.002">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.07.002</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, L., Ziviani, J., Ware, R. S., &amp; Boyd, R. N. (2014). Mastery motivation as a predictor of occupational performance following upper limb intervention for school‐aged children with congenital hemiplegia. Developmental Medicine &amp; Child Neurology, 56(10), 976–983. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12471">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12471</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moorman, E. A., &amp; Pomerantz, E. M. (2008). The role of mothers' control in children's mastery orientation: A time frame analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(5), 734. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.5.734">http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.5.734</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, G. A., Józsa, K., &amp; Liao, H.-F. (2017). Introduction to the HERJ special issue on mastery motivation. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 8–17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, G. A., Liao, H.-F., &amp; Józsa, K. (Eds.) (2020). Assessing mastery motivation in children using the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ). Szent Istvan University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, G. A., Liao, H.-F., Nyitrai, Á., Huang, S.-Y., Wang, P.-J., Blasco, P., Ramakrishnan, J., &amp; Józsa, K. (2017). The revised dimensions of mastery questionnaire (DMQ 18) for infants and preschool children with and without risks or delays in Hungary, Taiwan and the US. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 51–70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2018). Understanding motivation: Building the brain architecture that supports learning, health, and community participation. Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niccols, A., Atkinson, L., &amp; Pepler, D. (2003). Mastery motivation in young children with Down's syndrome: Relations with cognitive and adaptive competence. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47(2), 121–133. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2788.2003.00452.x">http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2788.2003.00452.x</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reitman, D., Currier, R. O., &amp; Stickle, T. R. (2002). A critical evaluation of the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) in a head start population. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31(3), 384–392. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3103%5f10">http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3103%5f10</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rin, H., Schooler, C., &amp; Caudill, W. A. (1973). Culture, social structure and psychopathology in Taiwan and Japan. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 157(4), 296–312. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005053-197310000-00009">http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005053-197310000-00009</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., &amp; Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005053-197310000-00009">http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005053-197310000-00009</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salavati, M., Vameghi, R., Hosseini, S. A., Saeedi, A., &amp; Gharib, M. (2018). Comparing levels of mastery motivation in children with cerebral palsy (CP) and typically developing children. Medical Archives, 72(1), 41–45. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2018.72.41-45">http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2018.72.41-45</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shikako-Thomas, K., Majnemer, A., Law, M., &amp; Lach, L. (2008). Determinants of participation in leisure activities in children and youth with cerebral palsy: Systematic review. Physical &amp; Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 28(2), 155–169. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01942630802031834">http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01942630802031834</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shonkoff, J. P. &amp; Phillips, D. A. (Eds.) (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. National Academy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spiker, D., Boyce, G. C., &amp; Boyce, L. K. (2002). Parent-child interactions when young children have disabilities. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation (Vol. 25; pp. 35–70). Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sumner, G., &amp; Spietz, A. (1994). NCAST caregiver/parent-child interaction teaching manual. NCAST Publications, University of Washington, School of Nursing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tesh, E. M., &amp; Holditch-Davis, D. (1997). HOME inventory and NCATS: Relation to mother and child behaviors during naturalistic observations. Research in Nursing &amp; Health.,20, 295–307. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199708)20:4%3C295::AID-NUR3%3E3.0.CO;2-B">http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199708)20:4%3C295::AID-NUR3%3E3.0.CO;2-B</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thiese, M. S., Ronna, B., &amp; Ott, U. (2016). P value interpretations and considerations. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 8(9), E928. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2016.08.16">http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2016.08.16</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, P.-J., Chen, L.-C., Liao, H.-F., Tu, Y.-K., Lu, L., &amp; Morgan, G. A. (2019). Is mastery motivation a mediator of relations between maternal teaching behavior and developmental abilities in children with global developmental delay? Physical &amp; Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 39(3), 292–309. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01942638.2018.1505800">http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01942638.2018.1505800</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, P.-J., Huang, S.-Y., Gilmore, L., Szenczi, B. (2020). The DMQ in Children Developing Atypically and Comparisons with Those Developing Typically In Morgan G. A., Liao H.-F., &amp; Józsa K. (Eds.), Assessing mastery motivation in children using the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ) (pp. 159–185). Szent István University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, P.-J., Liao, H.-F., Kang, L.-J., Chen, L.-C., Hwang, A.-W., Lu, L., &amp; Morgan, G. A. (2021). Child and family factors predicting participation attendance in different daily activities for toddlers experiencing global developmental delay. Disability and Rehabilitation, 43(13), 1849–1860. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1678685</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, P. J., Liao, H. F., &amp; Morgan, G. A. (2016). Assessing mastery motivation in a young child with global developmental delay. International Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 4(6), 103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, P.-J., Liao, H.-F., &amp; Morgan, G. A. (2017). The revised individualized structured mastery tasks for 15 to 48 month-old children. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 68–85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, P.-J., Morgan, G. A., Hwang, A.-W., Chen, L. C., &amp; Liao, H.-F. (2014). Do maternal interactive behaviors correlate with developmental outcomes and mastery motivation in toddlers with and without motor delay? Physical Therapy, 94, 1744–1754. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130560">http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130560</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, P.-J., Morgan, G. A., Hwang, A.-W., &amp; Liao, H.-F. (2013). Individualized behavioral assessments and maternal ratings of mastery motivation in mental-age matched toddlers with and without motor delays. Physical Therapy, 93(1),79–87. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20120068">http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20120068</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, P.-J., Morgan, G. A., Liao, H.-F., Chen, L.-C., Hwang, A.-W., &amp; Lu, L. (2016). Reliability and validity of the revised individualized structured mastery tasks in children with developmental delay. International Journal of Physical Medicine &amp; Rehabilitation, 4,374–380. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2329-9096.1000374">http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2329-9096.1000374</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, T. M., Su, C. W., Liao, H. F., Lin, L. Y., Chou, K. S., &amp; Lin, S. H. (1998). The standardization of the Comprehensive Developental Inventory for Infants and Todllers [in Chinese; English abstract]. Psychological Test, 45, 19–46.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, W., Spinrad, T. L., &amp; Eisenberg, N. (2023). The development and prediction of young children's behavioral mastery motivation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 62, 239–250. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.09.001">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.09.001</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warschausky, S., Kaufman, J. N., Evitts, M., Schutt, W., &amp; Hurvitz, E. A. (2017). Mastery motivation and executive functions as predictors of adaptive behavior in adolescents and young adults with cerebral palsy or myelomeningocele. Rehabilitation Psychology, 62(3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000151</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. World Health Organization.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young, J. M., &amp; Hauser-Cram, P. (2006). Mother-child interaction as a predictor of mastery motivation in children with disabilities born preterm. Journal of Early Intervention, 28(4), 252–263. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105381510602800402">http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105381510602800402</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zou, W., Anderson, N., &amp; Tsey, K. (2013). Middle-class Chinese parental expectations for their children's education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 1840–1849. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.209">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.209</ulink></bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Pei-Jung Wang; Hua-Fang Liao; Li-Chiou Chen; Lin-Ju Kang; Lu Lu and Karen Caplovitz Barrett</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref146"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1439563 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Child and Family Predictors for Mastery Motivation in Children with Developmental Delays – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pei-Jung+Wang%22">Pei-Jung Wang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hua-Fang+Liao%22">Hua-Fang Liao</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Li-Chiou+Chen%22">Li-Chiou Chen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lin-Ju+Kang%22">Lin-Ju Kang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lu+Lu%22">Lu Lu</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Karen+Caplovitz+Barrett%22">Karen Caplovitz Barrett</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22American+Journal+on+Intellectual+and+Developmental+Disabilities%22"><i>American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities</i></searchLink>. 2024 129(5):387-404. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. P.O. Box 1897, Lawrence, KS 66044-1897. Tel: 785-843-1235; Fax: 785-843-1274; e-mail: AJMR@allenpress.com; Web site: https://meridian.allenpress.com/aaidd – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 18 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developmental+Delays%22">Developmental Delays</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Development%22">Child Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Development%22">Cognitive Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Motor+Development%22">Motor Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Development%22">Social Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Motivation%22">Learning Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Influence%22">Family Influence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Involvement%22">Family Involvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictive+Measurement%22">Predictive Measurement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developmental+Tasks%22">Developmental Tasks</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mastery+Learning%22">Mastery Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Participation%22">Student Participation</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1352/1944-7558-129.5.387 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1944-7515<br />1944-7558 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Motivation is a key factor for child development, but very few studies have examined child and family predictors of both child task and perceived motivation. Thus, the three aims of this 6-month longitudinal study in preschoolers with global developmental delays (GDD) were to explore: 1) differences between task and perceived motivation in cognitive domain; 2) differences among three domains of perceived motivation: cognitive, gross motor, and social; and 3) early child and family predictors of cognitive task motivation and the three domains of perceived motivation 6 months later. Results indicated that preschoolers with GDD showed higher cognitive task motivation than cognitive perceived motivation, and lower perceived cognitive motivation than the other two perceived motivation domains. Different child and family factors predicted cognitive task motivation and the three domains of perceived motivation. Practitioners should educate caregivers on how to observe children's motivation to enhance children's active participation. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1439563 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1439563 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1352/1944-7558-129.5.387 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 18 StartPage: 387 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Preschool Children Type: general – SubjectFull: Preschool Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Developmental Delays Type: general – SubjectFull: Child Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Cognitive Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Motor Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Learning Motivation Type: general – SubjectFull: Family Influence Type: general – SubjectFull: Family Involvement Type: general – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables Type: general – SubjectFull: Predictive Measurement Type: general – SubjectFull: Developmental Tasks Type: general – SubjectFull: Mastery Learning Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Participation Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Child and Family Predictors for Mastery Motivation in Children with Developmental Delays Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Pei-Jung Wang – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Hua-Fang Liao – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Li-Chiou Chen – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Lin-Ju Kang – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Lu Lu – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Karen Caplovitz Barrett IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 09 Type: published Y: 2024 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1944-7515 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1944-7558 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 129 – Type: issue Value: 5 Titles: – TitleFull: American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
