This review found that motor-based interventions significantly improved overall motor skills, balance function, and activity performance in children with developmental coordination disorder. It also reports that task-oriented training significantly improved overall motor skills, balance function, and activity performance, while combined task- and process-oriented training also improved overall motor skills.

The paper notes that early in the 20th century, a *general motor ability* (GMA) was proposed to underlie performance across different motor skills. It then states that "first order factor analyses of motor performance data derived from multiple tasks have seemed to provide the principal support for the existence of multiple motor abilities, distinct from a global motor ability, since, as noted above, only weak correlations between separate motor tasks have typically been found." It cites Fleishman’s work from the 1950s–1980s identifying 11 psychomotor abilities and nine physical proficiency abilities rather than a single unitary motor ability.

This review summarizes evidence that children with developmental coordination disorder show difficulties across multiple motor domains, including balance, coordination, and timing-related performance. The literature reviewed treats these as distinct subcomponents of motor skill rather than a single unitary capacity.

The meta-analysis found that children with developmental coordination disorder showed significant deficits across several motor domains. Results across different test components support the idea that balance, coordination, and related motor abilities can vary independently in their degree of impairment.

Factor-analytic studies identified multiple motor factors rather than one general motor factor. The findings support partial independence among motor abilities such as balance, coordination, strength, and timing.

This study examined the specificity hypothesis by examining the association between two specific motor competence test batteries. In general, low pair-wise correlations (r^2 < 0.20) between the different motor tasks were found. Thus, low pair-wise correlations would provide evidence consistent with the specificity of abilities hypothesis (Henry, 1961a). In this long-standing view, skill acquisition is specific to the tasks in the context that they are learned. Overall, the findings of the current study provide further support for the idea of specificity in individual's motor behavior (Henry, 1961b; Larkin and Parker, 2002). These findings on test item relations show that an individual can perform differently on different motor tasks (i.e., high and low respectively) even if the tasks are within the same category although scored differently as for example balance. Thus, motor competence consists of number of different skills with performance varying from one motor task to the next.

Early research on motor abilities often assumed the existence of a general motor ability, analogous to general intelligence, that would account for an individual's level of success across a wide range of motor skills. Subsequent factor-analytic and correlational work in the mid-20th century, however, showed that performance on different kinds of motor tasks (e.g., balance, aiming, speed, manual dexterity) tended to load on separate factors and exhibited low intercorrelations. This pattern of results led many motor behavior researchers to adopt a specificity-of-motor-abilities view, in which different motor abilities are treated as relatively independent dimensions rather than manifestations of a single general capacity.

This review describes how early theories often emphasized a general motor ability, whereas later research increasingly examined specific motor components. The paper discusses evidence that different motor skills may develop at different rates and may not be strongly tied to a single underlying ability.

The document summarizes Edwin A. Fleishman’s factor‑analytic program: "Fleishman conducted research to understand the feasibility and usefulness of ability constructs in the analysis of tasks and jobs. In the first step, Fleishman identified a set of basic human abilities using factor analysis of performance measures on a wide variety of tasks." It reports that this work led to separate groupings of "perceptual‑motor abilities" and "physical proficiency abilities" (e.g., strength, stamina, flexibility, balance, coordination) rather than a single global motor ability factor.

This contemporary factor‑analytic study of fine motor skills in children (2020–2023 cohorts) reports that multiple factors underlie fine motor performance rather than a single unitary motor ability. The authors describe testing different measurement models and finding that "a multifactor structure provided a better fit to the data than a single‑factor solution," supporting the idea that components of motor ability (e.g., different fine motor subskills) are at least partially independent.

Early theories in motor behavior proposed the existence of a general motor ability that would underlie performance across a variety of motor skills. Subsequent research, however, indicated that motor abilities such as balance, agility, coordination, and speed are relatively independent of one another, with low correlations found between performance on different tasks. This led to the view that individuals possess a profile of specific motor abilities rather than a single, all-encompassing motor ability.

Following World War II, the study of motor behavior was largely influenced by several physical educators, with a focus on movement skills in school-age children. Much of this work involved the development of test batteries intended to assess children’s overall motor proficiency, often based on an implicit belief in a general motor ability. Over time, factor-analytic studies of these test batteries suggested that children’s performance was better described in terms of several relatively distinct components of motor competence (such as balance, coordination, and object control skills) rather than by a single general motor factor.

The review discusses balance and coordination as distinct training targets and notes that combination programs can improve static and dynamic balance, as well as functional strength. It also states that inter-joint coordination and the timing of muscle action affect locomotion, showing that motor control involves separable components.

The article distinguishes multiple motor competence components, including stability, locomotion, and object control, and argues that motor skill development should not be reduced to a single global ability. It presents motor competence as a set of related but separable components.

The slides explicitly contrast a *general motor ability* view with a *specificity* view, noting: "Research evidence generally supports the specificity hypothesis." One slide on balance states, "Conclusion – Research evidence indicates static and dynamic balance are distinct, independent abilities." The presentation then summarizes Fleishman’s taxonomy, listing 11 perceptual‑motor abilities (e.g., multi‑limb coordination, reaction time) and 9 physical proficiency abilities (e.g., static strength, dynamic strength, gross body coordination, gross body equilibrium), presented as separate, relatively independent abilities.

The general motor ability hypothesis is that abilities are highly related and can be grouped as a single overall ability. A person can be described as having an overall amount of general motor ability, and the level of this ability in an individual influences the ultimate success that person can expect in performing any motor skill. The specificity of motor ability hypothesis, associated with Henry, proposes that many motor abilities are relatively independent in an individual; each person varies in the amount of each ability, such as balance, timing, and coordination. Research evidence supports the specificity hypothesis, as studies have found abilities like reaction time and movement speed to be uncorrelated, indicating that these motor abilities are not manifestations of one general motor ability.

In the mid-twentieth century, motor learning theorists debated whether a single general motor ability underlies all motor performance or whether multiple specific abilities exist. Early theories often posited a general motor ability, but empirical studies using batteries of motor tasks showed that skills such as balance, manual dexterity, speed, and coordination are only weakly correlated with each other. This led researchers to conclude that motor abilities are best understood as a set of relatively independent capacities rather than a single, unitary trait.

The review reports that activity-oriented and body function-oriented interventions can have a positive effect on motor function and skills. It also notes that task-oriented approaches were more efficient than process-oriented approaches, suggesting that different motor skills respond differently to intervention rather than behaving as one general ability.

In this lecture on motor learning, the instructor introduces Fleishman’s taxonomy: "a taxonomy of motor abilities has been developed… the goal… was to create a sort of minimalistic inventory of abilities" split into "perceptual motor abilities and physical proficiency abilities." The lecture lists the physical proficiency abilities, emphasizing that they relate to strength, flexibility, and gross body coordination, and separately notes abilities such as "static and dynamic balance" as distinct categories, reflecting the notion of multiple, relatively independent motor abilities rather than one general motor skill.

In early motor behavior and motor learning literature (first half of the 20th century), a general motor ability or "motor educability" construct was often proposed, suggesting that a single underlying ability explained success across many motor skills. Later empirical work using correlations and factor analysis across diverse motor tasks consistently found only modest correlations between different motor skills and multiple distinct factors (e.g., balance, coordination, speed, strength), which led most researchers to reject a strong single‑factor general motor ability in favor of multiple, relatively independent motor abilities.