Deanne Fay1, Tawna Wilkinson1, A Dawn Anderson2, Megan Hanyzewski1, Kelli Hellwig3, Cherish Meador4, Karli Schultz5, Janelle Wong6. 1. a Physical Therapy , A T Still University , Mesa , Arizona , USA. 2. b Reeves Rehabilitation Center, University Hospital , San Antonio , Texas , USA. 3. c Bella Vista Health and Rehabilitation , Glendale , California , USA. 4. d Rieger Services, Inc. , Phoenix , Arizona , USA. 5. e Rehabilitation Therapy, Sunrise Children's Hospital , Las Vegas , Nevada , USA. 6. f Head to Toe Therapy, Inc. and Progressive Therapy, LLC , Phoenix , Arizona , USA.
Abstract
Aims: The current study assessed whether modifying instructions on the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, Second Edition (PDMS-2) affected scores in children with typical development. Methods: The gross motor portion of the PDMS-2 was administered twice, 2-10 days apart, to 38 children. Age- and gender-matched groups received instructions in both standard and modified formats, with order depending on group assignment. Results: Gross Motor Quotient results showed an effect for instruction type (p = .03) and an interaction between instruction type and order (p = .02). Improved scores for those given modified instructions during the second session indicated the interaction favored modifications. Stationary scores showed an effect for instruction type (p = .01) and an interaction between instruction type and age (p = .02). Object Manipulation scores showed an interaction between instruction type and order only (p =.002); Locomotion scores showed no significant changes (p = .25). Percentile rank changes ranged from 9% to 22% across subtests. Conclusions: Findings suggested instruction modifications may change PDMS-2 gross motor scores, even in children with typical development. Findings also suggested normative scores should not be reported if modifications were used during testing. Research is needed to determine optimal cues for the best representation of true motor ability during standardized assessment.
Aims: The current study assessed whether modifying instructions on the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, Second Edition (PDMS-2) affected scores in children with typical development. Methods: The gross motor portion of the PDMS-2 was administered twice, 2-10 days apart, to 38 children. Age- and gender-matched groups received instructions in both standard and modified formats, with order depending on group assignment. Results: Gross Motor Quotient results showed an effect for instruction type (p = .03) and an interaction between instruction type and order (p = .02). Improved scores for those given modified instructions during the second session indicated the interaction favored modifications. Stationary scores showed an effect for instruction type (p = .01) and an interaction between instruction type and age (p = .02). Object Manipulation scores showed an interaction between instruction type and order only (p =.002); Locomotion scores showed no significant changes (p = .25). Percentile rank changes ranged from 9% to 22% across subtests. Conclusions: Findings suggested instruction modifications may change PDMS-2 gross motor scores, even in children with typical development. Findings also suggested normative scores should not be reported if modifications were used during testing. Research is needed to determine optimal cues for the best representation of true motor ability during standardized assessment.
Entities:
Keywords:
Motor assessment; gross motor; instructions; motor skill