Content validity evidences in the motor coordination test with ball

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to establish content validity evidences in the Motor Coordination Test with Ball (MCTB). Four Ph.D. professors and former sports coaches with academic experience in the motor coordination area took part of the validation process as experts. The experts assessed four motor tasks and graded using the Likert scale from one to five for criteria of clarity of language, practice relevance, and theoretical relevance. The content validity coefficient (CVC) has been used to determine the CVCc of each task and the CVCt for the instrument as a whole, adopting as a cutoff CVCc .70 and CVCt .80. The results showed good agreement among experts concerning “clarity of language” (CVC= .89), “practice relevance” (CVC= .81), and theoretical relevance (CVC= .86). For “practice relevance” of images and videos of task execution, there has been observed CVCt of .86 and CVCt of .95, respectively. When requested the order of relevance of coordination pressures, the agreement among experts presented the existence of at least four coordination pressures in each one of the tasks and, out of these, at least two had a higher relevance. After the calculation of the CVC, ecological validity was determined for the MCTB, accrediting it as an instrument for the assessment of motor coordination with ball in the context of sports games.

Construct Validity Evidence in the Motor Coordination Test with Ball - MCTB

“…The MCTB, first proposed by Ribas et al (2020), consists of four tasks (moving with the ball, balance beam, driving the ball in line, and spinning) and allows the test user to identify the respondent’s specific difficulties performing with hands and feet, on left or right side of the body, using basic motor skills in sports practice, such as bouncing, driving, throwing, and receiving. We placed the tasks under the influence of different sets of pressure demands on coordination, such as time, precision, sequence, simultaneity, variability, and loading (Kröger & Roth, 2002); these are presented in the following table.…”

“…After the respondent’s task performances, the evaluator makes an individual diagnosis per task and/or a general classification from the MCTB. As requested by Hernández-Nieto (2002), an important condition for instrument validation are good indices of content validity in terms of language clarity (CVCt = .89), practice relevance (CVCt = .81), and theoretical relevance (CVCt = .86) (Ribas et al, 2020). For the MCTB, demonstration videos for each task, the classification form, and the classification table are all free of charge and available on the following Web site: https://www.ufmt.br/curso/gemepe…”

“…The Motor Coordination Test with Ball - MCTB (Ribas et al, 2020), has its theoretical underpinning in the so-called model of pressure demands on coordination formulated by Kröger and Roth (2002). The MCTB is a free instrument for assessing motor coordination that presents dynamic tasks and different types of balls, uses different motor skills, requires established respondent laterality, and favors motor coordination tasks with balls under the combined action of two or more coordination pressures (time, precision, sequence, simultaneity, variability, and loading).…”