Validity and reliability evidence for motor competence assessments in children and adolescents: A systematic review

Hulteen, Ryan M.; Barnett, Lisa M.; True, Larissa; Lander, Natalie; Cruz, Borja del Pozo; Lonsdale, Chris

doi:10.1080/02640414.2020.1756674

Cited by 79 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 123 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… 36 37 These reviews found that construct validity was the most commonly assessed aspect of validity and that generally assessments had sound quantitative evidence for proposed factor structures for motor constructs. Our finding that content validity was reported the least is in agreement with Hulteen et al , 37 yet in contrast to Scheuer et al , 36 who found that content validity was the second most commonly reported form of validity (60% of studies). It should be noted that the differences observed between these reviews and ours may be linked to methodological factors.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Test-retest reliability was the most commonly reported property for reliability, followed by inter-rater reliability, while only a single study examined intra-rater reliability. 68 As noted by Hulteen et al , 37 it is interesting that test-retest reliability was reported the most given that it is more time consuming, with greater burden for the participant, as this construct requires data collection on at least two time points for each participant, ideally 2 weeks apart. In comparison inter-rater and intra-rater reliability constructs can be checked during the same testing session.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…This could be due to the low prevalence of reporting. 37 Alternatively, testing for responsiveness requires researchers to conduct longitudinal or experimental studies, which are more difficult and time consuming to conduct. Testing for responsiveness has been identified as an important area for future research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Motor competence assessments for children with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: a systematic review

Downs

Boddy

McGrane

et al. 2020

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveGross motor competence is essential for daily life functioning and participation in physical activities. Prevalence of gross motor competence in children with intellectual disabilities (ID) and/or autism is unclear. This systematic review aimed to identify appropriate assessments for children with ID and/or autism.Design & data sourcesAn electronic literature search was conducted using the EBSCOhost platform searching MEDLINE, Education Research Complete, ERIC, CINAHL Plus and SPORTDiscus databases.Eligibility criteriaIncluded studies sampled children with ID and/or autism aged between 1 and 18 yrs, used field-based gross motor competence assessments, reported measurement properties, and were published in English. The utility of assessments were appraised for validity, reliability, responsiveness and feasibility.ResultsThe initial search produced 3182 results, with 291 full text articles screened. 13 articles including 10 assessments of motor competence were included in this systematic review. There was limited reporting across measurement properties, mostly for responsiveness and some aspects of validity. The Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-2 followed by The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 demonstrated the greatest levels of evidence for validity and reliability. Feasibility results were varied, most instruments required little additional equipment (n=8) and were suitable for a school setting, but, additional training (n=7) was needed to score and interpret the results.ConclusionThis review found the BOT-2 followed by the TGMD-2 to be the most psychometrically appropriate motor competency assessments for children with ID and/or autism in field-based settings. Motor competence assessment research is limited for these cohorts and more research is needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019129464.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Motor competence assessments for children with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: a systematic review

Downs

Boddy

McGrane

et al. 2020

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Secondly, the TGMD‐2 was used for the assessment of MC across time although the majority of children already fell outside the age range of the test during follow‐up measurement. However, few MC instruments have been developed for use in both children and adolescents and many focus on child populations 41 . As noted by Hulteen et al, 41 there is a need for further investigation into the use of existing instruments in adolescent populations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long‐term effectiveness of a fundamental motor skill intervention in Belgian children: A 6‐year follow‐up

Coppens

Rommers

Bardid

et al. 2021

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The overwhelming amount of literature used the TGMD-2 or -3, a finding that matches recent reports by both Logan et al [ 13 ] and Klingberg et al [ 22 ]. Despite this, there was still discrepancies in how the assessment batteries were administered between the individual studies, possibly effecting validity and reliability [ 96 ]. The difference in both choice and administration of assessment tool is one of the areas leading to a lack of consensus within research to gain a full understanding of the FMS and MC levels achieved in young children, as there is not a universal tool available [ 23 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fundamental Movement Skills and Accelerometer-Measured Physical Activity Levels during Early Childhood: A Systematic Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early childhood is a key period for children to begin developing and practicing fundamental movement skills (FMS), while aiming to perform sufficient physical activity (PA). This study reviews the current evidence for the levels of achievement in FMS and PA measured using accelerometers among 4–5-year-old children and examines differences by gender. This review was conducted using the PRISMA framework. Keyword searches were conducted in Pubmed, Medline, Google Scholar and SPORTDiscus. Inclusion criteria included age: 4–5 years old; FMS measurement: Test of Gross Motor Development 2 and 3; PA measurement: objective methods; balance measurement: static single limb; study design: cross-sectional observational/descriptive, randomised control trials, intervention studies; language: English. Twenty-eight articles from twenty-one countries met the inclusion criteria and were split into either FMS and PA articles (n = 10) or balance articles (n = 18). Three articles showed children achieving 60 min of moderate to vigorous PA per day, two articles demonstrated significant differences between girls’ and boys’ performance of locomotor skills and five reported locomotor skills to be more proficient than object control skills at this age for both genders. Balance was measured in time (n = 12), points score (n = 3) or biomechanical variables (n = 3), displaying heterogeneity of not only measurement but also outcomes within these data, with static single limb balance held between 6.67 to 87.6 s within the articles. Four articles reported girls to have better balance than boys. There is little conclusive evidence of the current levels for FMS, PA and balance achievement in young children 4–5 years of age. The academic literature consistently reports low levels of FMS competence and mixed evidence for PA levels. Inconsistencies lie in balance measurement methodology, with broad-ranging outcomes of both low and high achievement at 4–5 years old. Further research is required to focus on increasing practice opportunities for children to improve their FMS, increase PA levels and establish sufficient balance ability. Consistent and comparable outcomes during early childhood through more homogenous methodologies are warranted.

show abstract

Validity and reliability evidence for motor competence assessments in children and adolescents: A systematic review

Cited by 79 publications

References 123 publications

Motor competence assessments for children with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: a systematic review

Motor competence assessments for children with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: a systematic review

Long‐term effectiveness of a fundamental motor skill intervention in Belgian children: A 6‐year follow‐up

Fundamental Movement Skills and Accelerometer-Measured Physical Activity Levels during Early Childhood: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About