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 x Zi: Fitness	Yi: morphology x Wi: coordination	Zi: Fitness x Wi: 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.