1 Correction to: Sports Medicine https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01150-5

Page 1, Abstract, Results, sentence 1: The following sentence, which previously read:


“For both Test of Gross Motor Development, Second Edition subscales, approximately 47% of the sample qualified as at risk for developmental delay (≤ 25th percentile) while around 30% had developmental delay (≤ 5th percentile).”


should read:


“For both Test of Gross Motor Development, Second Edition subscales, approximately 77% of the entire sample qualified as at risk for developmental delay (≤ 25th percentile), while 30% of the entire sample were at or below 5th percentile.”


Page 2, Key Points, second point: The following sentence, which previously read:


“For both subscales, 47.4% of this sample scored at or below the 25th percentile while around 30% of this sample were at or below the 5th percentile, indicating a secular decline from the 2000 normative references.”


should read:


“For both subscales, 77.4% of this sample scored at or below the 25th percentile including 30% scoring at or below the 5th percentile, indicating a secular decline from the 2000 normative references.”


Page 4, section 3.1, sentences 1–3: The following three sentences, which previously read:


“Concerning DD classifications for the entire sample, 26.1%, 47.4%, and 26.5% (locomotor) and 29.9%, 47.4%, and 22.7% (object control) of participants had DD, were at risk for DD, or were not at risk for DD, respectively. Concerning all subgroups, DD classification percentages for the locomotor subscale ranged from 20–32% for the > 25th percentile, 44–52% for the ≤ 25th percentile, and 17–32% for the ≤ 5th percentile. For the object control subscale, DD classification percentages for all subgroups ranged from 12–27% for the > 25th percentile, 32–54% for the ≤ 25th percentile, and 24–56% for the ≤ 5th percentile (see Table 1).”


should read:


“Concerning DD classifications for the entire sample, 26.1%, 47.4%, and 26.5% (locomotor) and 29.9%, 47.4%, and 22.7% (object control) of participants demonstrated DD, were at risk for DD, or were not at risk for DD, respectively. Concerning all subgroups, DD classification percentages for the locomotor subscale were: 20–32% of the sample above the 25th percentile, 44–52% between the 5th and 25th percentile, and 17–32% at or below the 5th percentile. For the object control subscale, 12–27% were above the 25th percentile, 32–54% were between the 5th and 25th percentile, and 24–56% were at or below the 5th percentile (see Table 1).”


Page 6, section 4, sentence 3: The following sentence, which previously read:


“Using a large and diverse sample, 47.4% of the sample qualified as at risk for DD (≤ 25th percentile) for the locomotor or object control subscales, while around ≈ 25–30% of the sample were found to have DD (≤ 5th percentile) for the locomotor and object control subscales.”


should read:


“Using a large and diverse sample, approximately 77% of the sample were at risk for DD (≤ 25th percentile) for the locomotor or object control subscales, which includes 25–30% of the sample being at or below the 5th percentile.”


Page 8, section 5, paragraph 1, sentence 2: The following sentence, which previously read:


“If ≈ 45–50% of young children are ≤ 25th percentile and ≈ 25–30% are ≤ 5th percentile, does time of data collection matter (e.g., decade to decade)?”


should read:


“If ≈ 77% of young children are ≤ 25th percentile including ≈ 25–30% below the ≤ 5th percentile, does time of data collection matter (e.g., decade to decade)?”


The original article has been corrected.