We tracked the motor skill development of young children aged 3–6 years and investigated the influence of middle‐income home environment on the development of motor skill. 268 children were selected from kindergartens in Beijing. The Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) tool was used to test the development of locomotor and object‐control skills (LS and OS), and a survey of children’s behaviour and home environment was conducted. During the follow‐up, the LS and OS of children aged 3–6 years continued to grow, with an annual growth rate of 20% and 30%. Five LS indicators and two OS indicators were significantly higher in the 3–4‐year group than in the 4–5 and 5–6‐year groups (p < 0.01). The age‐sex trend model showed that girls’ locomotor skill developed at a significantly higher rate than that of boys (β = 6.3004 and 4.6782, p < 0.001). Three‐year‐old boys performed significantly better than girls on object‐control motor skill (p < 0.05). Factors affecting the rate of children’s motor skill development in middle‐income families included the frequency of playing with friends (β = 0.133, p = 0.032) and the frequency of bicycling, skateboarding, dancing, running, and jumping (β = 0.041, p = 0.042). Family income, parents’ education level, and family activity area did not significantly affect the growth rate of motor skills. For middle‐income families, the improvement of material environment at home like more playing spaces and toys did not speed up the motor development, while more opportunities to play with friends and engage in a variety of sports activities could promote children’s motor skill development.

This paper examines: (1) The demographic characteristics of different marital statuses of drug dependents; (2) differences in exercise attitudes and family function by marital status; and (3) if family function factors correlated with exercise attitudes and if exercise attitude factors correlated with family function. Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) revealed significant differences in drug dependents’ exercise attitudes between married and single groups (p < 0.05) and the married and “other” groups (p < 0.01). Furthermore, we observed significant differences in drug dependents’ family function between married and single groups (p < 0.01) and married and other groups (p < 0.05). Regression analyses indicated that communication [F_change(1,1791) = 137.819; p < 0.001] was a significant positive predictor for drug dependents’ exercise attitude, accounting for 7.1% of the observed variance. Moreover, 50% of the variance was explained by willingness [F_change(1,1791) = 850.49, p < 0.001] and control [F_change(1,1790) = 141.415, p < 0.001], which were two significant predictors of drug dependents’ family function. Findings of this study were: (1) Exercise attitude and family function of married drug dependents were better than single drug dependents and other marital status addicts; (2) communication was observed as a factor of family function that correlated with exercise attitude; and (3) willingness was related with family function.