Natalie Lander1, Philip J Morgan2, Jo Salmon3, Samuel W Logan4, Lisa M Barnett5. 1. Deakin University, School of Health and Social Development, Australia. Electronic address: nlander@deakin.edu.au. 2. Newcastle University, PRC in Physical Activity and Nutrition, Faculty of Education and Arts, Australia. 3. Deakin University, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, Australia. 4. Oregon State University, Social Mobility Lab and PlayTech Workshop, School of Biological and Population Health Sciences, USA. 5. Deakin University, School of Health and Social Development, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Proficiency in fundamental movement skills (FMS) is positively correlated with cardiorespiratory fitness, healthy weight status, and physical activity. Many instruments have been developed to assess FMS in children. It is important to accurately measure FMS competency in adolescent populations, particularly in girls, who are less proficient than boys. Yet these tests have not been validated or tested for reliability among girls in this age group. DESIGN: The current study tested the concurrent validity and reliability of two FMS assessment instruments; the newly developed Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA), against the Victorian FMS Assessment from Australia, among a sample of early adolescent girls. METHODS: In total, 34 Year 7 females (mean age 12.6 years) from Australia were tested and retested on each instrument in a school setting. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was excellent for the overall CAMSA score (ICC=0.91) and for the isolated time and skill score components (time: ICC=0.80; skill: ICC=0.85). Test-retest reliability of the Victorian FMS Assessment was also good (ICC=0.79). There was no evidence of proportional bias in either assessment. There was evidence of strong concurrent validity (rs=0.68, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both instruments were found to be reliable and valid. However, compared to the Victorian FMS instrument, the CAMSA has the advantage of both process and product assessment, less time needed to administer and higher authenticity, and so may be an attractive alternative to the more traditional forms of FMS assessment, for use with early adolescent girls, in school settings.
OBJECTIVES: Proficiency in fundamental movement skills (FMS) is positively correlated with cardiorespiratory fitness, healthy weight status, and physical activity. Many instruments have been developed to assess FMS in children. It is important to accurately measure FMS competency in adolescent populations, particularly in girls, who are less proficient than boys. Yet these tests have not been validated or tested for reliability among girls in this age group. DESIGN: The current study tested the concurrent validity and reliability of two FMS assessment instruments; the newly developed Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA), against the Victorian FMS Assessment from Australia, among a sample of early adolescent girls. METHODS: In total, 34 Year 7 females (mean age 12.6 years) from Australia were tested and retested on each instrument in a school setting. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was excellent for the overall CAMSA score (ICC=0.91) and for the isolated time and skill score components (time: ICC=0.80; skill: ICC=0.85). Test-retest reliability of the Victorian FMS Assessment was also good (ICC=0.79). There was no evidence of proportional bias in either assessment. There was evidence of strong concurrent validity (rs=0.68, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both instruments were found to be reliable and valid. However, compared to the Victorian FMS instrument, the CAMSA has the advantage of both process and product assessment, less time needed to administer and higher authenticity, and so may be an attractive alternative to the more traditional forms of FMS assessment, for use with early adolescent girls, in school settings.
Authors: Mark S Tremblay; Patricia E Longmuir; Joel D Barnes; Kevin Belanger; Kristal D Anderson; Brenda Bruner; Jennifer L Copeland; Christine Delisle Nyström; Melanie J Gregg; Nathan Hall; Angela M Kolen; Kirstin N Lane; Barbi Law; Dany J MacDonald; Luc J Martin; Travis J Saunders; Dwayne Sheehan; Michelle R Stone; Sarah J Woodruff Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Rubén Navarro-Patón; Julien Brito-Ballester; Silvia Pueyo Villa; Vanessa Anaya; Marcos Mecías-Calvo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Katie E Gunnell; Patricia E Longmuir; Joel D Barnes; Kevin Belanger; Mark S Tremblay Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 3.295