Validity and Reliability Evidence of Smart Start in Preschoool-aged Children with/without a Developmental Delay and/or a Disability

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate validity and reliability evidence of Smart Start in male (n =35) and female (n = 25) children with/without a disability. Fundamental movement skills (FMS) of preschoolers (with a disability, n = 32; and without a disability, n = 28) aged between 37 to 64 months were examined using Smart Start and the Test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition. The correlation between total scores of the two instruments was r = .89, p < .01. Across three raters, the average percentages of agreement, modified kappa coefficients, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for intra-rater reliability using Smart Start on all participants were .92, .83, and .96, respectively. For inter-rater reliability, the average percentages of agreement, modified kappa coefficients, and ICCs based on all participants were .86, .71, and .93, respectively. The major findings provide preliminary evidence to support concurrent validity and intra-and inter-rater reliability of the Smart Start for assessing FMS of preschoolers with/without a disability.

Comparing the fundamental movement skill proficiency of children with intellectual disabilities and typically developing children: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…As illustrated in the Results section, one of the key findings of this meta-analysis indicates that an area of weaknesses in motor skill proficiency for children with ID is object manipulation skills, with a large effect size seen in the standardised mean difference (g = 1.21) between children with ID and TDC. The results found in this study support the findings of previous literature by Zikl et al (2013), Jung et al (2017), Pitchford & Webster (2021) and ErginSıtkı & Özbek (2021), suggesting that this subcategory of FMS for this population is weaker in comparison with their locomotor skills. The results of the locomotor skills also indicated a large effect size (g = 1.14) between the two groups; however, as expected and in line with other studies, the standardised mean difference was not as large as with object manipulation skills.…”

“…(2013), Jung et al . (2017), Pitchford & Webster (2021) and ErginSıtkı & Özbek (2021), suggesting that this subcategory of FMS for this population is weaker in comparison with their locomotor skills. The results of the locomotor skills also indicated a large effect size (g = 1.14) between the two groups; however, as expected and in line with other studies, the standardised mean difference was not as large as with object manipulation skills.…”