1 European Forum for Psychomotricity (2024). Psychomotor Formation, Practice & Research in Europe. QuEP - An Online Questionnaire of the European Forum for Psychomotricity. Coordinated by the EFP working group “Science and Research”: Bellemans, Tina; Bodas, Ana Rita; Cattafesta, Silvia; Efstratopoulou, Maria; Muzler, Susanne; Nemcanska, Aneta; Nideröst, Melanie; Rene, Ariane; Saint-Cast, Alexandrine; Scheewe, Thomas; Schmid, Jörg Lemmer; Vetter, Martin. Motorik, 47 Jg. (3) Psychomotor Formation, Practice & Research in Europe QuEP - An Online Questionnaire of the European Forum for Psychomotricity The European Forum for Psychomotricity (EFP) has conducted an international census survey, capturing qualification formats, working conditions and research topics in the field of psychomotricity. The central goal was to initiate more research collaborations within and between countries. The complete questionnaire including the results as well as the raw data set of almost 1500 respondents will be provided for the international research community as an open source by the European Forum for Psychomotricity. For this, the Open Science Framework (OSF) will be used. OSF is a nonprofit free web application, that supports researchers to collaborate, document and share their research projects, materials and data. You can find the OSF-Project “EFP Questionnaire on European Psychomotricity 2024 (QuEP)” by using the search function on the OSF platform (osf.io), or directly this link https: / / osf.io/ w6uap/ . You can also use this official DOI 10.17605/ OSF.IO/ W6UAP. Please take note of the suggested citation you can find on the project site, if you are referring to the project, the data or the documents. The EFP was founded in 1996 in Marburg (Germany). The aim of this international organization is to promote the development of psychomotricity in Europe. This includes the further development of training formats, psychomotor practices, professionalization, as well as the promotion of research activities (EFP 2024). While psychomotricity is financed by the healthcare system in France and psychomotor promotion is almost an integral component of educational institutions of Switzerland, most other countries still struggle for the official recognition of psychomotricity as a healthcare or education profession. A central problem from a health policy perspective is the lack of sufficient and scientifically substantiated efficacy studies. At the General Assembly 2019 in Paris, the EFP commissioned a task group to address this issue by conducting an international study focusing on current and needed research in the field of psychomotricity in Europe. 2 Consisting of eight members from eight different countries, the EFP “Research and science enhancement group” benefited from their international diversity and the work of previous EFP surveys to create two new psychomotricity census questionnaires: one for practitioners and one for researchers. Collaboration took place via video calls and faceto-face meetings in Rome (2021), Marburg (2022), and finally in Brussels (2023). Due to the great diversity of psychomotor practice approaches and theoretical references, the biggest challenge was the concrete formulation of an item pool that considered the international peculiarities and terminologies. For example, the discussion and conventions of one country for naming and differentiating psychomotor approaches and their theoretical backgrounds, cannot simply be matched to other national scientific discourses and traditions. Therefor the development phase of the questionnaire was characterized by an extensive effort. Three test versions were needed before content and terminology could be validated through qualitative interviews with representatives from all member countries. Finally, the questionnaire QuEP (Questionnaire about European Psychomotricity) was distributed in English, German, and French via the Lime-Survey online platform from August 2022 to February 2023. The sending of the invitation link was coordinated through the respective EFP country delegates and/ or national psychomotricity associations. As most countries also used social media platforms, it is not possible to determine a response rate. Table 1: Distribution of the questionnaire Country Distribution Mail Name of contacted Associations Social Media Austria Mail to all the members the associations and to Graduates of the university program Psychomotricity at the Postgraduate Center of the University of Vienna • Aktionskreis Motopädagogik Österreich • VaLeo psychomotorische Entwicklungsbegleitung GmbH • Psychomotorik Österreich • Universität Wien: Postgraduatecenter: Psychomotorik x Belgium • UPBPF Union professionelle belge de psychomotriciens francophones • NVPMT beroepsvereniging voor psychomotorisch therapeuten in Nederland x Czech Republic N/ A Denmark N/ A 3 Finland Mail and two reminders to all members of the Association • Finnish Association of Psychomotoricity France • Fédération Française des Psychomotriciens x Germany Mail to all the members of the associations • DAKP Deutsche Akademie Aktionskreis Psychomotorik • DBM Deutscher Berufsverband der Motopäd*innen und Mototherpeut*innen • BVDM Berufsverband der Motologie • WVPM Wissenschaftliche Vereinigung für Psychomotorik und Motologie • Aus und Fortbildungsinstitute BAM / Akademie für PM • BVPM Berufsverband der Psychomotorik Vereine in Deutschland Greece N/ A Portugal Mail and one reminder to all members of the Association and published on APP website • Associaç-o Portuguesa de Psicomotricidade x Spain Mail to all the members of the association • FAPee Federación de Asociaciones de Psychomotricistas del Estado Español x Luxembourg Mail to all the members of the associations • ALPD Association Luxembourgeoise des Psychomotriciens Diplômés • Lëtzebuerger Aktiounskrees Psychomotorik Netherlands Mail to all the members of the association • NVPMT Nederlandse Vereiging voor Psychomootrische Therapie Italy Mail and one reminder to all the members the associations and universities and private schools • APPI Professional Association of Italian Psychomotricians • CONAPP Coordination of National Associations in Psychomotricity • AIFP Italian Association for Education in Psychomotricity • FISSPP Italian Federation of Professional Schools in Psychomotricity • COLAP Coordination of liberal professional associations • TSRM National Federation for Health Profession x Switzerland Mail to all the members of the association and universities • Psychomotorik Schweiz 4 The questionnaire contains four parts, whereas part four mostly is geared for a special researcher’s version: 1. Demographics (country of origin, age, gender, professional experience, training format and duration) 2. Work context (employment status, working hours per week, age, and treatment indication) 3. Work practice (individual vs. group setting, group sizes, specific promotion or treatment goals, theoretical frameworks/ approaches). 4. Research (needed and existing research fields and topics, methods, instruments, study designs, and publication activity). It is important to mention, that the collection and naming of different “theoretical frameworks / approaches” for the questionnaire received special attention. Within psychomotricity there are various approaches that are theoretically derived from wellestablished sciences such as sports, physical education, sociology, psychology, art, neurology, psychiatry and so on. At the same time psychomotricity steams in most countries from different pioneers who developed their theoretical ideas by working with clients. Throughout Europe, there are various psychomotor approaches that are being utilized. However, there is no international consensus on this matter (Emck & Scheffers 2019). Seewald (2009) describes that the defining of approaches is also a matter of interpretation by the respective authors. In practice, approaches often blend (Seewald 2009; Köckenberger & Hammer 2004). Given this, within our international expert community of the EFP, we have identified 10 categories through multiple rounds. Not all approaches will be familiar to the same extend in all countries or have precisely the same practical approach. The results to the questions referring to approaches therefore need to be read with caution. To address this uncertainty, the questionnaire also included openended questions to allow participants to describe their approaches. The 10 approaches we are presenting here are an initial attempt for a categorization on an international level and can be understood as an invitation for further research: 1. psychodynamic, 2. behavioral, 3. systemic, 4. humanistic, 5. developmental, 6. competence orientated, 7. sensorimotor, 8. biological/ medical, 9. embodiment / somatics, 10. Artistic. 5 The Data Set After clearing the collected data from survey dropouts and other incorrect entries, a total of 1427 participants from 14 member countries remained. For international comparisons and to ensure representative statements about a country, a cut-off value of at least 70 participants was chosen. Nine countries reached this criterion (see table 2). Table 2: countries with more than 70 participants Country N Switzerland 257 Italy 250 Germany 197 France 145 Portugal 113 Austria 91 Netherlands 87 Spain 73 Belgium 71 Almost 12% of the participants (N=169) chose the researcher version of the questionnaire. The age of all participants ranged from 19 to 85 years with an average of 41.56 years (SD = 12.62). The proportion of women was 90%. The professional experience ranged from 0 to 52 years with an average of 12 years (SD = 10.23), indicating a qualified and representative overall sample. How to use the data The full data set of each participating country as well as all items of the questionnaire in English, German and French, can be as mentioned above accessed and downloaded on the OSF platform “EFP Questionnaire on European Psychomotoricity 2024”. The EFP encourages the use of the QuEP also as a national progress documentation tool. For example, how is our professional field changing in the context of increasing digitalization of workplaces and school systems? For international comparison, it is important to guarantee transparency about the developmental histories of psychomotricity and the current professional-political contexts of the individual countries. The central benefit of the QuEP lies in the qualitative and quantitative collection of existing research activities, as well as in the expression of needed research by 6 practitioners. The authors postulate, that the psychomotor research community could more easily meet the standards for efficacy studies demanded by evidence-based medicine (e.g., RCTs) by internationally synchronizing thematic focuses and sharing experimental setups and measurement tools. Through this kind of collaboration larger data sets with probably less method related data variance can be generated. This will not only increase the test power for finding significant results in a particular study but will also enable subsequent studies, such as e.g. meta-analyses. Summary The European Forum for Psychomotricity has developed the online questionnaire “QuEP”, creating an international tool that gathers essential information about psychomotor practices, training formats, and research activities. This tool not only facilitates international comparisons but also provides an accessible means for documenting national developments over time. It is important to note critically that the distribution of the survey access link was not adequately documented in some countries, potentially affecting the representativeness of the data collected in the first survey round (2023). Additionally, the challange of internationally consistent definitions and categorizations of psychomotor approaches in theory and practice was only briefly addressed. Further research and exchange are needed to overcome international language barriers. The QuEP should be seen as a step towards initiating international joint research projects, which have good prospects for funding through European funding pools. As discussed at this year’s German Psychomotor Research Congress (WVPM) in Bochum, supporting this initiative by creating an international psychomotor PhD program could be a promising idea. The EFP working group can be contacted for further suggestions and questions. 7 References EFP (2024): Statutes. Access: www.psychomot.org/ efp/ statutes [1.3.2024] EFP (2023): Psychomotricity in Europe. Workingfields, approaches & research. Presentation at the World congress of Psychomotricity in Verona, Italy. Coordinated by the working groupe “science & research” of the European Forum of Psychomotricity: Bellemans, T.; Bodas, A.R.; Cattafesta, S.; Efstratopoulou, M.; Muzler, S.; Nemcanska, A.; Nideröst, M.; Rene, A.; Saint-Cast, A.; Scheewe, T.; Schmid, J.L., Vetter, M. Emck, C., & Scheffers, M. (2019): Psychomotor interventions for mental health: an introduction. In: J. De Lange, O. Glas, J.T. van Busschbach, C. Emck & T.W. Scheewe (Eds.), Psychomotor interventions for mental health: Adults. Boom Uitgevers, Amsterdam, 17-51 Köckenberger, H & Hammer, R. (2004): Psychomotorik, Ansätze und Arbeitsfelder. Verlag modernes lernen, Dortmund Seewald, J. (2009): Wann ist ein Ansatz ein Ansatz. Über Kriterien für psychomotorische Ansätze. Praxis der Psychomotorik 34 (1), 31-32 The Authors • Tina Bellemans (University of Applied Science Windesheim, NL) t.bellemans@windesheim.nl • Ana Rita Bodas (University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, PT) anarita@utad.pt • Susanne Muzler (Somatic Movement and Dance, AT) Office@somatic-movement.at • Melanie Nideröst (University of Teacher Education in Special Needs Zurich, CH melanie.nideroest@hfh.ch • J. Lemmer Schmid (University of Applied Sciences Emden/ Leer, GER) J.Lemmer.Schmid@HS-Emden-Leer.de Contact European Forum of Psychomotricity, Working Group “Science and Research” EFP-research@mail.de Prof. Dr. J. Lemmer Schmid (Professor of Motology at Emden/ Leer University of Applied Sciences) J.Lemmer.Schmid@HS-Emden-Leer.de 8 Current and former members of the EFP working group „science & research“ contributing to the development of QuEP • Tina Bellemans (University of Applied Science Windesheim, NL) • Ana Rita Bodas (University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, PT) • Silvia Cattafesta (Italian Center of Studies and Research in Psychology and Psychomotricity, CISERPP Verone, ITA) • Maria Efstratopoulou (Aristotle University, GRC) • Aneta Nemcanska (Masaryk University Brno, CZ) • Susanne Muzler (Somatic Movement and Dance, AT) • Melanie Nideröst (University of Teacher Education in Special Needs Zurich, CH • Ariane Rene (Institute Ilya Prigogine Brussels, B) • Alexandrine Saint-Cast (ISRP Paris, FR) • Thomas Scheewe (University of Applied Science Windesheim, NL) • J. Lemmer Schmid (University of Applied Sciences Emden/ Leer, GER) • Martin Vetter (University of Ludwigsburg, GER) Special recognition for the realization of this study also goes to the board of the EFP. European Forum of Psychomotricity www.psychomot.org Facebook LinkedIn