RATIONALE: Among the most widely used instruments to assess developmental co-ordination disorder (DCD) in children are the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP) and the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (M-ABC). However, there is little research on agreement between these tests, when administered to children in field-based settings by trained non-clinicians. METHOD: Ten of 75 schools participating in a larger study were randomly selected. All children in grade 4 (n= 340) in each of these schools were assessed at the same time using both the BOTMP-SF and the M-ABC in May of 2005. The order of tests was balanced, with an average gap in time between tests of 10-15 min. All tests were administered by trained research assistants. RESULTS: The correlation between tests was moderate (r= 0.50, P < 0.01). Kappas were low at the fifth (k= 0.19) and 15th (k= 0.29) percentile cut-points, which are generally used to identify cases of DCD. Re-analysis using the relative improvement over chance (RIOC) statistic, however, revealed slightly better agreement at both cut-points (fifth percentile, RIOC = 0.29; 15th percentile, RIOC = 0.47). Children who scored as probable for DCD on both motor tests, as well as on only the BOTMP-SF, had higher body mass index, poorer physical fitness and lower levels of teacher-reported physical ability than those positive for DCD on the M-ABC only or those who scored negatively on both tests. DISCUSSION: In general, the agreement between tests, even after adjustment for RIOC, was poor. Children identified with poor motor competence by both tests or by the BOTMP-SF only are at particular risk for poor physical fitness, overweight/obesity and physical inactivity. It appears that each assessment measures different dimensions of motor ability but that under field-based conditions the M-ABC may be less useful when applied by non-clinicians.
RATIONALE: Among the most widely used instruments to assess developmental co-ordination disorder (DCD) in children are the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP) and the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (M-ABC). However, there is little research on agreement between these tests, when administered to children in field-based settings by trained non-clinicians. METHOD: Ten of 75 schools participating in a larger study were randomly selected. All children in grade 4 (n= 340) in each of these schools were assessed at the same time using both the BOTMP-SF and the M-ABC in May of 2005. The order of tests was balanced, with an average gap in time between tests of 10-15 min. All tests were administered by trained research assistants. RESULTS: The correlation between tests was moderate (r= 0.50, P < 0.01). Kappas were low at the fifth (k= 0.19) and 15th (k= 0.29) percentile cut-points, which are generally used to identify cases of DCD. Re-analysis using the relative improvement over chance (RIOC) statistic, however, revealed slightly better agreement at both cut-points (fifth percentile, RIOC = 0.29; 15th percentile, RIOC = 0.47). Children who scored as probable for DCD on both motor tests, as well as on only the BOTMP-SF, had higher body mass index, poorer physical fitness and lower levels of teacher-reported physical ability than those positive for DCD on the M-ABC only or those who scored negatively on both tests. DISCUSSION: In general, the agreement between tests, even after adjustment for RIOC, was poor. Children identified with poor motor competence by both tests or by the BOTMP-SF only are at particular risk for poor physical fitness, overweight/obesity and physical inactivity. It appears that each assessment measures different dimensions of motor ability but that under field-based conditions the M-ABC may be less useful when applied by non-clinicians.
Authors: Arin A Balalian; Robin M Whyatt; Xinhua Liu; Beverly J Insel; Virginia A Rauh; Julie Herbstman; Pam Factor-Litvak Journal: Environ Res Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Bouwien Smits-Engelsman; Evi Verbecque; Marisja Denysschen; Dané Coetzee Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 4.614