Comparability of the Test of Gross Motor Development–Second Edition and the Test of Gross Motor Development–Third Edition

Abstract

When a test is revised, it is important that test users are made aware of the comparability of scores of the new and the original test. We examined how scores on the Test of Gross Motor Development–Second Edition (TGMD-2) and Test of Gross Motor Development–Third Edition (TGMD-3) compared among children in middle childhood. Participants were 270 children recruited in grade 3 (54% female; Mage = 8 years 6 months) and followed through grade 5. Participants completed the skills of both tests. Subtest scores were converted into percent of maximum possible (POMP) scores to facilitate comparison. Although similar, uniformly the TGMD-3 POMP scores were slightly lower. Repeated measures analyses of variance revealed that locomotor subtest scores derived from both tests improved from grade 3 to grade 5, as did TGMD-3 assessed ball skills. However, there was no difference in TGMD-2 assessed object control skills over time. It appears that under-contribution by the underhand roll suppressed the trajectory of improvement of TGMD-2 assessed object control skills. This finding supports the exclusion of the roll from the TGMD-3. The consistent pattern of sex-based differences in TGMD-2 object control skill and TGMD-3 ball skills reinforces the need for male and female norm-reference data for ball skills.

The validity and reliability of observational assessment tools available to measure fundamental movement skills in school-age children: A systematic review

“…Similarly, modified versions of the TGMD-2 and TGMD-3 were both found to be valid for use in children with visual deficits [67]. Additionally, one study showed significant differences between subtest scores on the second and third editions of the TGMD across year groups and gender, in which participants performed better on the TGMD-2 [69].…”

“…One study evaluated these aspects of reliability using a Content Validity Index (CVI) and found good evidence for both inter and intra-rater reliability when testing Chilean children, with CVIs ranging from .86 to .91 [141]. An additional study evaluated the inter and intra-rater reliability of the TGMD second and third editions using percentage agreement [69]. Results showed agreement for inter-rater reliability was 88% and 87% for the TGMD-2 and TGMD-3 respectively, and for intra-rater reliability the percentage agreement was 98% for the TGMD-2 and 95% for the TGMD-3 [69].…”

“…An additional study evaluated the inter and intra-rater reliability of the TGMD second and third editions using percentage agreement [69]. Results showed agreement for inter-rater reliability was 88% and 87% for the TGMD-2 and TGMD-3 respectively, and for intra-rater reliability the percentage agreement was 98% for the TGMD-2 and 95% for the TGMD-3 [69]. Fewer studies examined the test-retest reliability of the TGMD, but those that did demonstrated that for the TGMD-2 [63,68,82,142,143], a short version of the TGMD-2 modified for Brazilian children [84] and the TGMD-3 [56,85,144,145] participants score similarly when they are tested on multiple occasions.…”

Methodological Advances in Motor Learning and Development

“…Considerations about internal validity, external validity, statistical conclusion validity, and construct validity apply to all types of measures. In this special issue, several teams of researchers have made significant advances in the area of measurement (Field, Esposito Bosma, & Temple, 2020;Garcia-Masso et al, 2020;Hauge et al, 2020;Lucca et al, 2020;Ng et al, 2020). As before, these papers make several contributions, but I perceive their primary contribution to be in measurement.…”

“…With further research, the General Movement Competence Assessment may provide researchers with a low-cost tool for measuring motor competence in children. Field et al (2020) compare second and third editions of the Test of Gross Motor Development in a sample of N = 270 children from Grade 3 to Grade 5. Although correlated, scores on the third edition of the test tended to be slightly lower.…”