Gender differences in quality of schoolwork task performance among typically developing students and students at risk of or with mild disabilities

Abstract

The results, focused on occupational performance, complement prior research that has focused on examining for gender differences in behaviour, academic achievement, and coordination among students with mild disabilities. These results also suggest that current School AMPS normative values, based on combined gender means, are valid.

Reliability of the School AMPS measures

“…typically developing vs. mild, typically developing vs. at risk, mild) (21,22). Further research has supported no gender differences in quality of schoolwork task performance among typically developing students and students at risk or with mild disabilities (23). Additionally, the School AMPS measures are, despite the presence of minimal differential item functioning (DIF) free of world region bias among four major world regions (North America, Australia, and New Zealand, United Kingdom and Nordic countries) (24).…”

Are the school version of the assessment of motor and process skills measures valid for German-speaking children?

“…The participants were evaluated between November 2006 and July 2015; their anonymous data were extracted from the database in August 2015. Gender was not considered because previous research revealed no gender bias for typically-developing children when using the School AMPS [16].…”

“…mild, developmental/neurological, cognitive/psychological, other multiple disabilities) [9,15]. Furthermore, research has revealed no gender bias for typicallydeveloping children or children at risk or with mild disabilities [16]. Munkholm, L€ ofgren, and Fisher [17] found high reliability coefficients (r !…”

“…In this study, we set the criterion for a clinically meaningful difference as one that was equal to or greater than the international mean SE for school motor (0.28 logits) or school process measures (0.22 logits). The decision to use the mean SE of the School AMPS was based on previous research [16,21].…”