Professional Documents
Culture Documents
• Establish baseline
Review of Motor
• Funding eligibility
Assessments for • Intervention planning
School-aged • To determine if motor skill deficits are impacting
Children and functional performance
Potential challenges in
assessing motor skills
• Time to complete assessment Movement
• Space to complete assessment
Assessment Battery
• Cognitive or communication delays
for Children, 2nd
• Limited attention or challenging behaviours
edition (MABC-2)
• Severe motor impairment
Sheila E Henderson
• Performance on a standardised motor David A Sugden
assessment might not accurately capture Anna L Barnett
motor competence or deficit in functional
activities
• Teacher Checklist
1
23/10/2017
• Maximum of 2 trials
2
23/10/2017
• 4.5m line
• Maximum of 2 trials
Set up and
start
position
3
23/10/2017
Start position
• Ten attempts
• Maximum score is 30 seconds • Heel of front foot must touch toes of rear
foot
• Board must not tilt such that a side touches
the floor • Maximum = 15 steps or when child reaches
end of line
•Child must wear trainers
• Maximum of 2 trials
4
23/10/2017
• 5 continuous hops
Set up and
• Each hand is tested start
position
• Start timing when free hand leaves mat
• No bounces allowed
5
23/10/2017
• Scores available
‒ Item standard scores (mean 10, SD 3)
‒ Component standard scores and percentiles
‒ Total assessment standard score (mean 10, SD 3)
and percentiles
6
23/10/2017
Scoring Scoring
Appendix B pages167-176 of manual
• Percentile cut-offs:
<5th percentile = significant motor difficulty
6 – 15th percentile = careful monitoring suggested
>15th percentile = no significant motor difficulty
Teacher Checklist
• Section C
• Non-motor factors that influence movement
e.g. impulsivity, distractibility, persistence,
anxiety
Checklist Scoring
7
23/10/2017
• Teacher checklist to take into account performance in • Children with limited cognitive ability
typical environment
•Children with poor attention
• Observations check boxes to guide clinical
observations • Children who are guaranteed to fail but need a
• Separate Intervention manual standardised score for funding
Potential drawbacks
48
8
23/10/2017
Overview
Age range: 4 to 21 years Primary Uses
Administration time 45-60 min for entire
assessment, 10-15 min per composite • Assess the motor proficiency of all children, ranging from those who are typically
developing to those with mild to moderate motor control problems
Purpose:
• Comprehensive and reliable assessment of • Support diagnosis of motor impairments
fine and gross motor skills
• Develop and evaluate motor training programs
Core areas assessed:
• Fine Manual Control • Screen individuals who may have certain deficits in motor ability and who might benefit
• Fine motor precision from further evaluation or interventions (short form)
• Fine motor integration
• Manual Coordination • Research
• Manual dexterity
• Upper-limb coordination
• Body Coordination
• Bilateral coordination
• Balance
• Strength and Agility
• Running speed & agility
• Strength
9
23/10/2017
• 5 items • 7 items
• Goal-directed activities that involve reaching, grasping and bi-manual coordination • Designed to measure visual tracking with coordinated arm and hand
with small objects. movements
• Making dots in circles • Catching
• Transferring coins • Dribbling
• Threading beads • Throwing
• Sorting cards • 4 items require the use of one hand
• Pegs in a pegboard • 3 items require coordination of both hands
• Emphasis is on accuracy but items are timed to differentiate levels of dexterity.
• 7 items • 9 items
• Tasks require body control and sequential and simultaneous • Measures stability of trunk, static balance and movement and
coordination of upper and lower limbs proprioception or use of visual cues
• Pivoting fingers and thumbs (itsy bitsy spider) • Standing on both feet
• Touching nose with index fingers • Standing on one foot
• Tapping feet and fingers • Standing on floor
• Jumping jacks • Standing on balance beam
• Jumping in place same side/alternate side synchronised • Walking forward on a line
• Measures motor skills involved in sports and recreation • 3 items require eyes to be closed
• Some will likely be familiar tasks while some will be novel
10
23/10/2017
Score Reporting
• Note: When converting point scores into scaled scores or standard scores, you need
to decide if you want to use gender-specific norms or combined-gender norms. The
authors advise using gender-specific norms.
• On the cover of the record form, there are spaces to report on:
• Subtest Scores
Point Score
Scaled Score (Mean=15, SD=5)
Confidence Interval
Age Equivalent
Descriptive category
• Composite Scores (Fine Manual Control, Manual Coordination, Body
Coordination, Strength & Agility, Total Motor)
Standard Scores (mean of 50, SD of 10)
Confidence Interval
Percentile Rank
Descriptive Category
11
23/10/2017
Fine manual .85-.90 .52-.82 .92 Content development Correlation b/w Subtests correlate to
Control influenced by focus groups, BOTMP and BOT-2 composite scores:
surveys, professional Total Motor .75 -.90
consultation, research and Composite = .80
Manual .86-.89 .68-.76 .98 motor development theory
Coordination
Additional content validity Correlation b/w Factor analyses provide
Body .87-.89 .65-.83 .99 evidenced through measures PDMS-2 Total Motor strong support for the four
Coordination of item fit through factor Quotient and BOT-2 motor-area composites for
Strength & Agility .86 - .92 .88 - .95 .99 analysis. Total Motor all age groups. All values
Composite = .73 >.95
• Uses goal-directed activities to assess skills • A child has been flagged as delayed on a
screening assessment and you need something
• Can pick & choose subtests (don’t need to administer more comprehensive
complete assessment to get scores)
• When you need to support a diagnosis of motor
• Task instructions can be tailored depending on child’s impairment
needs
• To develop highly tailored intervention plans
• Strong psychometric properties. In particular, inter-
rater reliability makes for consistent results • To assess the efficacy of an intervention
• Can use short form as a screener without needing to • Can use Short Form as a screening tool
buy anything additional
• Research
71
12
23/10/2017
• Amy Schulenburg
• Consultant Occupational Therapist
• Pearson Clinical Assessment (Aust / NZ)
73
75 76
78
13
23/10/2017
• Child uses a knife and fork to cut a length of play-dough into 10 pieces • Child uses a spoon to sip water and scoop it from one cup into another
• Child spears each piece and places on a paper towel
79 80
• Child opens a keyed padlock and a combination padlock • Child constructs a paper box by colouring in pictures, cutting along
lines, folding and taping the box together
81 82
• Child opens a 3-ring • Child puts on and takes off an over-sized t-shirt and shorts
binder, organises colour-coded
dividers with corresponding
coloured paper and closes
binder.
83 84
14
23/10/2017
85 86
87 88
89 90
15
23/10/2017
91 92
93 94
95 96
16
23/10/2017
• If a child is having difficulty with functional tasks • Limited scoring system (only yields standardised
such as feeding/dressing this can highlight the scores for gross motor/fine motor – no subtest or
motor areas impacting function composite scores.)
• If a child has a more significant delay they may • Potential ceiling effect
have an easier time participating in these tasks as
• Flimsy manipulatives
they are familiar
• Some items are very “American”
• For a lower functioning child where you want to
measure progress over time in relation to tasks as • Intervention targets limited to SI-based approach
opposed to norms
• If you are using other SI based assessments or
interventions (e.g. SIPT, SPM)
98
Any questions?
amy.schulenburg@pearson.com
0407 259 317
(03) 9811 2807
99
17