Table 2. Results of the canonical correlation analyses among morphology and fitness, morphology and motor coordination and between fitness and motor coordination in 8 years old girls.
Multivariate domains
Yi: morphology xZi: Fitness Yi: morphology xWi: coordination Zi: Fitness xWi: coordination
rc 0.778 0.387 0.765
rc2 0.606 0.150 0.585
Eigenvalue 1.538 0.176 1.409
Wilks’ Lambda (p) 0.175 (<0.01) 0.719 (0.318) 0.289 (<0.01)
      % variance (Yi) 49.7%
      % variance (Zi) 17.4% 29.5%
      % variance (Wi) 45.4%
Y1: Stature (St) -0.56
Y2: Body mass (BM) -0.31
Y7: SH-to-stature ratio (SSR) -0.77
Y5: WC-to-stature ratio (WSR) -0.98
Y5: Fat percentage (%fat) -0.72
Z1: 2-kg ball throw (2BT) -0.71 -0.32
Z2: Hand grip strength (HGP) -0.67 -0.31
Z3: 60-s sit-ups (SUP) +0.33 -0.62
Z4: Standing long jump (SLJ) +0.29 -0.54
Z5: 25-m dash (SPR) -0.11 -0.45
Z6: 10x5-m shuttle run (SHR) -0.14 -0.66
Z7: Endurance 20-m (ESR) +0.42 -0.76
Z8: Sit-and-reach (SAR) +0.19 -0.51
W1: Walking backward (WB) -0.45
W2: Jumping sideways (JS) -0.78
W3: Moving sideways (MS) -0.24
W4: Hopping for height (HH) -0.97
SH (sitting height); WC (waist circumference). The sign was inverted for the SPR and SHR since lower scores correspond to better performances.