Objective: To assess whether the Movement ABC can be used to monitor individual change in motor performance.
Design: Motor-impaired children were tested three times in succession with the Movement ABC without any intervention.
Setting: Two schools for special education and one school for children who are chronically ill.
Subjects: Three girls and 20 boys aged 6–8 years. Main outcome measures: Scores were measured per item (0→5), added to cluster scores (0→10 or 15), added to form the total scores (0→40). Mean scores, standard errors of measurement (SEMs) and least detectable differences (LDDs) were calculated per item, per cluster and for the total scores. A repeated measures analysis of variance was performed to test for the effects of time.
Results: The total scores improved significantly from the first session (mean: 15.4 points) to the second (mean: 13.3), but not from the second to the third (mean: 13.2). Average item scores ranged from 0.6 to 2.7 points with SEMs of 0.79→1.54 and LDDs of 2.20→4.27. Average cluster scores ranged from 3.4 to 5.3 with SEMs of 1.51→1.84 and LDDs of 4.18→5.11. The SEM of the total scores equalled 3.13 with an LDD of 8.68.
Conclusions: The total score of the Movement ABC is sufficiently sensitive to monitor individual change; the cluster scores have moderate sensitivity and individual items are inappropriate to monitor individual change. The significant effect of time is interpreted as an effect of learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Jette AM. Physical disablement concepts for physical therapy research and practice. Phys Ther1994; 74: 379–386.
2.
Van der Net JJ. Functional aspects of rheumatic diseases in childhood. Doctoral Dissertation, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, 1995.
3.
Henderson SE, Sugden DA. Movement Assessment Battery for Children. Kent: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1992.
4.
Laszlo JI, Bairstow PJ, Bartrip J, Rolfe UT. Clumsiness or perceptuomotor dysfunction? In: Colley AM, Beech JR eds. Cognition and action in skilled behaviour. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1988: 293–310.
5.
Schoemaker MM, Hijlkema MGJ, Kalverboer AF. Physiotherapy for clumsy children: An evaluation study. Dev Med Child Neurol1994; 36: 143–155.
6.
Smits-Engelsman BCM, Schoemaker MM, Jansen MPHT, Niemeijer AS. Physical therapy for children with writing difficulties. [In Dutch] Ned Tijdschr Fysiother1996; 106: 156–166.
7.
Sims K, Henderson SE, Hulme C, Morton J. The remediation of clumsiness, 1: An evaluation of Laszlo's kinaesthetic approach. Dev Med Child Neurol1996; 38: 976–987.
8.
Stott DH, Moyes FA, Henderson SE. Test of Motor Impairment – Henderson revision. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation, 1984.
9.
Van Geert P. Dynamic systems and development: change between complexity and chaos. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994.
10.
Rothstein JM. Measurement in physical therapy. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1985.
11.
Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chron Dis1987; 40: 171–178.
12.
Rogers JC. Selection of evaluation instruments. In: King-Thomas MHS, Hacker BJ eds. A therapist's guide to pediatric assessment. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1987: 19–33.
Derstine S. Tests of infant and child development. In: Tecklin JS ed. Pediatric physical therapy. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1989: 16–39.
15.
Stratford P. Reliability: Consistency or differentiating among subjects?Phys Ther1989; 69: 299–300.
16.
Cunningham Amundson SJ, Crowe TK. Clinical applications of the standard error of measurement for occupational and physical therapists. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr1993; 12: 57–71.
17.
Roebroeck ME, Harlaar J, Lankhorst GJ. The application of generalizability theory to reliability assessment: an illustration using isometric force measurements. Phys Ther1993; 73: 386–401.
18.
Eliasziw M, Young SL, Woodbury MG, Fryday-Field K. Statistical methodology for the concurrent assessment of inter rater and intra rater reliability: using goniometric measurements as an example. Phys Ther1994; 74: 777–788.
19.
Wilson BN, Polatajko HJ, Kaplan BJ, Faris P. Use of the Bruininks–Oseretsky test of motor proficiency in occupational therapy. Am J Occup Ther1995; 49: 8–17.
20.
Hoare D. Subtypes of developmental coordination disorder. Adapt Phys Act Q1994; 11: 158–169.
21.
Shanks Sellers J. Clumsiness: Review of causes, treatments and outlook. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr1995; 15-4: 39–55.
22.
McConell D. Processes underlying clumsiness: a review of perspectives. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr1995; 15-3: 33–52.
23.
Wright HC, Sugden DA. The nature of developmental coordination disorder: inter and intragroup differences. Adapt Phys Act Q1996; 13: 357–371.
24.
DSM-IV diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition. Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
25.
Henderson SE, Hall D. Concomitants of clumsiness in young school children. Dev Med Child Neurol1982; 24: 448–460.
26.
Stevens JP. Intermediate statistics: a modern approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1990.
27.
Riggen KJ, Ulrich DA, Ozmun JC. Reliability and concurrent validity of the Test of Motor Impairment – Henderson revision. Adapt Phys Act Q1990; 7: 249–258.
28.
Schoemaker MM, Kalverboer AF. Social and affective problems of children who are clumsy: how early do they begin?Adapt Phys Act Q1994; 11: 130–140.
29.
Beckerman H, Roebroeck ME, Becher J, Lankhorst GJ, Bezemer PD, Verbeek ALM. The sickness impact profile: a useful outcome measure in stroke patients? Test–retest reproducibility and its implications for responsiveness. In: Beckerman H ed. Efficacy of thermocoagulation and an ankle-foot orthosis in stroke patients: A placebo controlled randomized clinical trial. Doctoral Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1996.
30.
Fleiss JL. Reliability of measurement. In: Fleiss JL ed. Design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: John Wiley, 1986: 1–32.
