STUDY ON BIKE RIDING
IN DOWNS AGED 10 OR MORE
R. COCCHI, a neurologist
and a medical psychologist
M. FAVUTO, a MD in
training for orthopaedics.
Summary
A group of 101 Down’s syndrome
subjects aged 10 or more (36 F + 75 M; average age 13.68 + 5.15 years;
chromosomal anomalies: pure trisomy 21 = 84; translocations = 3; mosaicisms =
7; unknown = 7) was investigated on bike riding with or without support wheels.
The results showed: (i) About 54% of
the sample do not ride a bike; (ii) Among bike riders, about 40% still use
support wheels. Biking seems a difficult task for Down individuals and learning
it does non completely agrees with their psycho-motor development.
Key words: Down’syndrome; bike riding;
psycho-motor development.
Home Page
/ / / Pagina
iniziale
In our previous research on motor
improvements in Down children treated by drug therapy, we said: "Among the
motor symptoms we did not report bike riding, although it was regularly
checked.
Regarding this, it appears that many
extraneous factors act on its learning. Often parents are fearful, or they
scarcely insist on their child riding a bike, or the child can show
unreasonable refusal, specially when he should leave the support wheels.
It seems that the child has an excessive
fear of losing his balance control, but this does not clearly look as a true
difficulty.
Sometimes the same child is afraid of
oscillating platforms, as he shows when he is putting on scales, during
consultation and this does not mean a pure psychological reaction."
(Cocchi & Favuto, 1993).
To try to understand this complex
problem, we began to study how Downs aged 10 or more ride a bike.
Materials
and method
From the records of a not selected
consecutive series of 519 Downs seen between January 1979 and October 1994, we
check up those about subjects aged 10 or more at first consultation. We
collected then information on age, sex, chromosomal diagnosis and the use of a
bike from the singled out records.
A year of life encompasses 6 months
before birthday and 6 months after it (eg: the 11th year ranges from
10 years and 7 months to 11 years and 6 months).
As for bike riding, we summed up this
behaviour by seeing about, if the child uses a bike, and if yes, whether he has
left behind support wheels.
We counted in two ways: first we referred
them to the total of the sample. Then we split the sample up into three
sub-samples according to years’ ranges such as 10-12, 13-15, 16 or more years.
Statistics: Chi Square, when suitable.
Results
The results we have obtained are shown as
it follows. A hundred and one out of 519 records (19.46%) matched the study
criteria and made the sample up. Table 1 shows epidemiological data of the
sample and sub-samples 1-3 and tables 2-3 check up bike riding.
Table 1: epidemiological data of the
sample and 10-12, 13-15, 16 or more years sub-samples.
|
|
Sample |
Sub-samp.1 |
Sub-samp.2 |
Sub-samp.3 |
|
Nr. of Ss. |
101 |
65 |
26 |
21 |
|
" " F |
36 |
25 |
5 |
6 |
|
" " M |
75 |
30 |
20 |
15 |
|
F/M * 100 |
100/208 |
100/120 |
100/400 |
100/250 |
|
Average age (years) |
13.68 |
11.82 |
14.08 |
20.71 |
|
SD |
5.15 |
0.82 |
0.86 |
7.48 |
|
Chromosomal anomaly |
|
|
|
|
|
Standard trisomy 21 |
84 = 83.2% |
47 = 86.4% |
20 = 80.0% |
17 = 80.95% |
|
Translocations |
3 = 3.0% |
2 = 3.7% |
1 = 4.0% |
0 = 0.0% |
|
Mosaicisms |
7 = 6.9% |
4 = 7.3% |
2 = 8.0% |
1 = 4.76% |
|
Unknown |
7 = 6.9% |
2 = 3.6% |
2 = 8.0% |
3 = 14.29% |
Table 2: Down aged 10 years or more and
bike riding; total sample and 10-12,
13-15, 16 or more years sub-samples.
|
Behaviour |
Sample |
Sub-samp.1 |
Sub-samp.2 |
Sub.samp.3 |
|
Not investigated |
7 = 6.63% |
1 = 1.82% |
|
4 = 19.06% |
|
Refuses the bike |
55 = 54.46% |
28 = 50.91% |
17 = 68.00% |
12* = 57.14% |
|
Rides when urged By the parents |
1 = 0.99% |
1 = 1.82% |
|
|
|
Rides normally |
38 = 37.62% |
25 = 45.45% |
8 = 32.00% |
5 = 23.81 % |
|
Totals |
101 = 100% |
55 = 100% |
25 = 100% |
21 = 100% |
(*) In past 2 subjects rode normally.
Chi Square: sub-s. 1 vs.
sub-s. 2: 2.556, 3 df and p = 0.640 N.S.
sub-s. 2 vs. sub-s. 3:
5.246, 2 df and p = 0.073 N.S.
sub-s. 1 vs. sub-s. 3:
9.155, 3 df and p < 0.04
More than 54% of the sample does not ride
a bike.
Table 3: riding with support wheels or
free biking; total sample and 10-12, 13-15, 16 or more years sub-samples.
|
Behaviour |
Sample |
Sub-samp.1 |
Sub-samp.2 |
Sub.samp.3 |
|
Rides with supp. Wheels |
15 = 39.47% |
12* = 46.15% |
3 = (37.50%) |
0 = 0.00% |
|
Free biking |
23 = 60.63% |
14 = 53.85% |
5 = (62.50%) |
4 = (100%) |
|
Totals |
38 = 100% |
26 = 100% |
8 = (100%) |
4 = (100%) |
(*) 1 child rides the bike only when
urged by the parents.
In the age 10-12 more than 53% of bike
riding subjects do it without support wheels.
Discussion
Although a sample of 101 Down subjects out
of 519 had to be representative, the F/M ratio differs very much from the
expected about 100/135. On the other hand, the distribution of the chromosomal
anomalies does not totally match the Italian and International distributions.
In our sample mosaic forms are
over-represented. The 3 sub-samples add to these difficulties. We had to
presume that gender proportion and chromosomal anomalies’ distributions are
crucial for this study too, until the contrary has not been stated.
Therefore we cannot think out the sample
as representative, and we retain ourselves to generalize the results.
An overview to the Table 1 shows
immediately that more than 54% of the subjects of this sample refuse to ride a
bike. This fact completely contrasts with the evidence of nearly 100% of same
age normal subjects enjoying bike riding, at least in Italy.
Sub-samples present a decreased bike
riding along with an increased age. It is not easy to interpret such a result.
If not due to a bias, we can think that more reliable rehabilitation programs
supplied to the younger generation could drive to better psycho-motor
performances, one of them being a wider learning of the bike’s use.
On the other hand, we have to note in
Table 2 that sub-sample 3 presents 2 subjects who have left their skill in bike
riding.
One of us early described this fact as a
part of reduced motor performances in 3 adults Down with mixed demential and
pseudodemential problems. (Cocchi & Cordella, 1990).
In Table 2, the significant comparison
between sub-samples 2 and 3 is debatable. If we proportionally divide the
unknown behaviour’s figure into all the remaining figures of the same
sub-sample, we do not reach any significance.
Among bike riders, as shown in Table 3,
more than 60% have left the support wheels and this proportion is about 54% in
10-12 years sub-sample, the only one we believe as suitable to have a
computation like this.
The number of Downs unable to leave the
support wheels appears very high, when compared to what same age normal
children usually do.
We can speculate on this kind of result
but it seems not easy to give a clear answer. Surely we found fearful parents,
or others who scarcely insisted on their child riding a bike; undoubtedly we have
seen Down children showing unreasonable refusal, specially when they were urged
to leave the support wheels.
Some Down children fear losing their own
balance control, but balance problems do not clearly look as true difficulties
when we consider the actual psycho-motor development of the child.
We think we have to survey some other
variables involved in Downs’ biking.
Conclusion
The study of biking in a sample of 101
Down subjects aged 10 years or more showed that about 54% do not ride a bike.
Among bike riders, nearly 40% did non leave the support wheels.
Biking seems a difficult task for Downs,
and it appears that their psycho-motor development does not fully account for
it. So we have not clear which causes this behaviour and we need to asssess other
variables, both psychological and biological.
Since we had collected the related data,
a further investigation on bike riding in drug treated children could give some
light on it.
References
Cocchi R., Cordella L.: Evoluzione
demenziale in soggetti Down: 3 casi clinici. Atti del III congresso nazionale
SIPG. Idelson, Napoli 1990.
Cocchi R., Favuto M.: Miglioramenti
motori dopo 3-8 mesi di trattamento con farmaci, nei Down. Riv. Ital. Disturbo
Intellet. 1993, 6: 251-258.
Printed on It. J. Intellect. Impair. 1994, 7: 159-162.
Author’s address: dr. Renato COCCHI, via Rabbeno, 3
42100 Reggio Emilia (Italy)
renatococchi@libero.it
Home Page
/ / / Pagina
iniziale