Objective: To analyse the psychometric properties of the Top Down Motor Milestone Test (TDMMT), an internationally used instrument in the planning and evaluation of movement-oriented interventions.
Setting: Centres for special education in the Netherlands.
Subjects: Children with profound multiple disabilities.
Methods: Validity, reliability and utility of the TDMMT were evaluated. Validity was assessed by conducting a principal component analysis. Reliability was determined by evaluating the internal consistency, test=retest and inter-rater reliability. With regard to utility, the hierarchical item ordering was evaluated with a Mokken scale analysis. Inter-item and item-rest correlations were calculated to confirm the allocation of the items in the TDMMT.
Results: Principal component analysis did not support the presence of three underlying factors. The internal consistency was high and test=retest and inter-rater reliability varied from moderate to perfect. Scale analysis showed that the subscales of the TDMMT are strong one-dimensional scales with good internal consistency, however, the order of the items could only partly be confirmed as well as the allocation of the items into four levels of functioning.
Conclusion: The reliability of the TDMMT is good, but validity is moderate. Results indicate that adaptations to the structure of the TDMMT should be made when used for children with profound multiple disabilities. Further psychometric evaluation of the TDMMT is necessary.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Bidabe L, Lollar JM. MOVE: Mobility Opportunities Via Education, third edition. Bakersfield: Kern Country Superintendent of Schools, 1995.
2.
2 Barnes SB, Whinnery KW. Effects of functional mobility skills training for young students with physical disabilities. Exceptional Children2002; 68: 313-324.
3.
3 Haley SM. Motor assessment tools for infants and young children: a focus on disability assessment. Med Sport Sci1992; 36: 278-283.
4.
4 Jette AM. Outcome research: Shifting the dominant research paradigm in physical therapy. Phys Ther1995; 75: 965-970.
5.
5 Nichols DS, Case-Smith J. Reliability and validity of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. Pediatr Phys Ther1996; 8:15-24.
6.
6 Butler C, Chambers H, Goldstein M et al. Evaluating research in developmental disabilities: a conceptual framework for reviewing treatment outcomes. Dev Med Child Neurol1999; 41:55-59.
7.
7 Brown DA, Effgen SK, Palisano RJ. Performance following ability-focused physical therapy intervention in individuals with severely limited physical and cognitive abilities. Phys Ther1998; 78: 934-947.
8.
8 Nakken H, Vlaskamp C. Joining forces: supporting individuals with profound multiple learning disabilities. Tizard Learning Disabil Rev2002; 3: 10-16.
9.
9 Sommerfeld D, Fraser BA, Hensinger RN, Beresford CV. Evaluation of physical therapy service for severely mentally impaired students with cerebral palsy. Phys Ther1981; 61: 338-344.
10.
10 Haley SM, Coster WJ, Ludlow LH, Haltiwanger JT, Andrellos PJ. Paediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI). Development, standardisation and administration manual. Boston, MA: New England Medical Centre Inc. and PEDI Research Group, 1992.
11.
11 Schwartz M, van den Burg F. De bruikbaarheid van dePEDI (Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory)bij meervoudig gehandicapte kinderen. Interne publicatie Instituut voor bewegingswetenschappen, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 1997.
12.
12 Burton AW, Miller DE. Review: Top-Down Motor Milestone Test. In: Burton AW ed. Movement skill assessment. Leeds: Human Kinetics, 1998.
13.
13 Elkins KM. A comparison between the achievement of students with severe multiple disabilities using a functional mobility curriculum versus traditional programs. Unpublished dissertation. University of la Verne, California, 1994.
14.
14 Brach M, Jekosch S, Dierbach O, Heck H. Motor milestones for elderly people in institutional care: adapting MOVE to a new target group. In: Conference 2000 Moving towards inclusion. Chatsworth House, Derbyshire. London: The Disability Partnership, 2000.
15.
15 Yun J, Ulrich D. Estimating measurement vali dity: a tutorial. Adapted Phys Activity Q2002; 1: 32-44.
16.
16 Move International. Accessed 23 September 2004, from www.move-international.org
17.
17 Stevens JP. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.
18.
18 Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
19.
19 Mokken RJ, Lewis C. A nonparametric approach to the analysis of dichotomous item responses. Appl Psychol Measurement1982; 4: 417-430.
20.
20 Niemöller K, Schuur van W. Stochastic models for unidimensional scaling: Mokken and Rasch. In: McKay D, Schofield N, Whiteley P eds. Data analysis and the social sciences. London: Frances Pinter, 1983.
21.
21 Jong de A, Molenaar IW. An application of Mokken's model for stochastic, cumulative scaling in psychiatric research. J Psychiatr Res1987; 2: 137-149.
22.
22 Watson R. The Mokken Scaling Procedure (MSP) applied to the measurement of feeding difficulty in elderly people with dementia. Int J Nursery Stud1996; 4: 385-393.
23.
23 Van der Lee JH, Roorda LD, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ. Improving the Action Research Arm test: a unidimensional hierarchical scale. Clin Rehabil2002; 16: 646-653.
24.
24 Ringdal GI, Jordhøy MS, Kaasa S. Measuring quality of pallitative care: psychometric properties of the FAMCARE Scale. Qual Life Res2003; 12: 167-176.
25.
25 Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg. Ernstig meervoudig gehandicapt en dán? Een onderzoek naar de kwaliteit van zorg voor mensen met meervoudige complexe handicaps. Den Haag, 2000.
26.
26 Willems ACB. Het dagcentrum voor kinderen met een verstandelijke of meervoudige handicap. In: van Gemert GH, Minderaa RB eds. Zorg voor mensen met een verstandelijke handicap. Assen: Van Gorcum & Gomp, 1997.
27.
27 Fetters L. Measurement and treatment in cerebral palsy: an argument for a new approach. Phys Ther1991; 71: 244-247.
28.
28 Rothstein JM. Disability and our identity. Phys Ther1994; 74: 375-378.
29.
29 Pellegrino L. Cerebral palsy: a paradigm for developmental disabilities. Dev Med Child Neurol1995; 37: 834-439.
30.
30 Goldberg MJ. Measuring outcomes in cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Orthop1991; 11: 682-685.
