Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Movement Skill Assessment in Children: Overview and Recommendations for Research and Practice

  • Motor Disorders (P Wilson, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Developmental Disorders Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Numerous instruments have been developed to assess children’s movement skills. The majority of these instruments were based on neuromaturational mechanisms underlying the execution of motor skills. Few tools have integrated current perspectives of motor development that focus on the interaction between children and the world in which they live. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of frequently used movement skill assessment tests and to make suggestions about the need to consider multiple, interacting systems when evaluating children’s motor performance.

Recent Findings

Recent reviews on movement skill assessments for children have demonstrated sound psychometric properties for most of the commonly used instruments including the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2, Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Performance-2, and the Test of Gross Motor Development-2.

Summary

This paper raises important questions regarding the existing approach to movement skill assessment and demonstrates the need for a paradigm shift in the field. We recommend that movement skill assessment procedures should provide considerable attention to all systems (individual, task, and environmental attributes) that might contribute to variations in children’s movement behavior. We propose that revised versions of existing instruments and new ones should be based on dynamic systems theory to help assess the factors that may influence the child’s movement behavior. Integration of technology into the development of field-based assessment tools is also recommended.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. •• DM W, Doya K, Kawato M. A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003;358(1431):593–602 A very interesting piece on the link between motor control and social interaction.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hoeger WW, Hoeger SA. Principles and labs for physical fitness. Cengage Learning; 2013.

  3. • Payne VG, Isaacs LD. Human motor development: A lifespan approach. Routledge; 2017. This book provides a lifespan perspective on movement skill development.

  4. • Haywood K, Getchell N. Life span motor development, 6th edn. Human Kinetics; 2014. This book explains the fundamental concepts in motor development and related issues.

  5. • Burton AW, Miller DE. Movement skill assessment. Human Kinetics; 1998. This book provides comprehensive and valuable information on movement skill assessment.

  6. Edwards WH. Motor learning and control: from theory to practice. Cengage Learning; 2010.

  7. •• Logan SW, Ross SM, Chee K, Stodden DF, Robinson LE. Fundamental motor skills: a systematic review of terminology. J Sports Sci. 2018;36(7):781–96 This paper considers the use of different nomenclature for describing fundamental motor skills.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Adolph KE, Berger SE. Motor development. Handbook of child psychology. 2006;2:161–213.

  9. Barnett AN, Peters JU. Motor proficiency assessment batteries. Developmental motor disorders: a neuropsychological perspective. 2004:66–109.

  10. Hands BP. How can we best measure fundamental movement skills? In Health Sciences Conference Papers. 2002. p. 5.

  11. •• Cools W, De Martelaer K, Samaey C, Andries C. Movement skill assessment of typically developing preschool children: a review of seven movement skill assessment tools. J Sports Sci Med. 2009;8(2):154 A very good review of popular motor assessment tests.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Cairney J, Hay JA, Faught BE, Hawes R. Developmental coordination disorder and overweight and obesity in children aged 9–14 y. Int J Obes. 2005;29(4):369–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cairney J, Hay JA, Veldhuizen S, Missiuna C, Faught BE. Developmental coordination disorder, sex, and activity deficit over time: a longitudinal analysis of participation trajectories in children with and without coordination difficulties. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2010;52(3):e67–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Piek JP, Hands B, Licari MK. Assessment of motor functioning in the preschool period. Neuropsychol Rev. 2012;22(4):402–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rivilis I, Hay J, Cairney J, Klentrou P, Liu J, Faught BE. Physical activity and fitness in children with developmental coordination disorder: a systematic review. Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32(3):894–910.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. •• Griffiths A, Toovey R, Morgan PE, Spittle AJ. Psychometric properties of gross motor assessment tools for children: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(10):e021734 This is the most recent systematic review on the psychometric properties of gross motor assessment batteries.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Hulteen RM, Lander NJ, Morgan PJ, Barnett LM, Robertson SJ, Lubans DR. Validity and reliability of field-based measures for assessing movement skill competency in lifelong physical activities: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2015;45(10):1443–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. • Yoon DY, Scott K, Hill MN, Levitt NS, Lambert EV. Review of three tests of motor proficiency in children. Percept Mot Skills. 2006;102(2):543–51 This study reviews selected tests of motor proficiency in children.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Deitz JC, Kartin D, Kopp K. Review of the Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency, (BOT-2). Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2007;27(4):87–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. • Wiart L, Darrah J. Review of four tests of gross motor development. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2001;43(4):279–85 This study considers four gross motor development assessment tools.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brown T, Lalor A. The movement assessment battery for children—second edition (MABC-2): a review and critique. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2009;29(1):86–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med. 2006;119(2):166–e7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(3):309–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Clark JE. Motor development. In: Ramachandran VS, editor. Encyclopedia of human behaviour. 3rd ed. New York: Academic Press; 1994. p. 245–55.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Clark JE, Metcalfe JM. The mountain of motor development: a metaphor. In: Clark JE, Humphrey JH, editors. Motor development: research and reviews, vol. 2; 2002. p. 163–90.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Estevan I, Barnett LM. Considerations related to the definition, measurement and analysis of perceived motor competence. Sports Med. 2018:1–0.

  27. Robinson LE, Stodden DF, Barnett LM, Lopes VP, Logan SW, Rodrigues LP, et al. Motor competence and its effect on positive developmental trajectories of health. Sports Med. 2015;45(9):1273–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Williams HG, Pfeiffer KA, O’neill JR, Dowda M, McIver KL, Brown WH, et al. Motor skill performance and physical activity in preschool children. Obesity. 2008;16(6):1421–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gallahue DL, Ozmun JC, Goodway J. Understanding motor development: infants, children, adolescents, adults. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rudd JR, Barnett LM, Butson ML, Farrow D, Berry J, Polman RC. Fundamental movement skills are more than run, throw and catch: the role of stability skills. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140224.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Illingworth RS. The normal child: some problems of the early years and their treatment. WB Saunders Company; 1991.

  33. Hadders-Algra M. The neuronal group selection theory: a framework to explain variation in normal motor development. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2000;42(8):566–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gesell A. Infancy and human growth. New York: Macmillan; 1928.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. McGraw M. Growth: a study of Jimmy and Johnny. New York; 1935.

  36. Gesell A. The embryology of behaviour. New York: Harper & Row; 1945.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Heriza C. Motor development: traditional and contemporary theories. In: Contemporary management of motor control problems: proceedings of II STEP conference. Alexandria: Foundation for Physical Therapy; 1991. p. 99–126.

  38. Clark JE, Whitall J. What is motor development? The lessons of history. Quest. 1989;41(3):183–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gesell A, Amatruda CS. Developmental diagnosis. Normal and abnormal child development. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row; 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sugden DA, Wade MG, Hart H. Typical and atypical motor development. London: Mac Keith Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wilson PH. Practitioner review: approaches to assessment and treatment of children with DCD: an evaluative review. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005;46(8):806–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Goodway JD, Branta CF. Influence of a motor skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development of disadvantaged preschool children. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2003;74(1):36–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Goodway JD, Robinson LE, Crowe H. Gender differences in fundamental motor skill development in disadvantaged pre-schoolers from two geographical regions. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2010;81(1):17–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Brian A, Goodway JD, Logan JA, Sutherland S. SKIPing with head start teachers: influence of T-SKIP on object-control skills. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2017;88(4):479–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Bayley N. Manual for the Bayley scales of infant development. Psychological Corporation; 1969.

  46. Bayley N. Bayley scales of infant and toddler development: Bayley-III. San Antonio: Harcourt Assessment, Psych. Corporation; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Folio MR, Fewell RR. Peabody developmental motor scales examiner’s manual. 2nd ed. Austin: Pro-Ed; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Squires J, Bricker D, Twombly E. Ages and Stages Questionnaires: Social-Emotional (ASQ: SE): apparent completed, child-monitoring system for social-emotional behaviours. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Bricker D, Squires J, Mounts L, Potter L, Nickel R, Twombly E, et al. Ages and stages questionnaire. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Squires J, Bricker D, Potter L. Revision of a parent-completed developmental screening tool: ages and stages questionnaires. J Pediatr Psychol. 1997;22(3):313–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Rutter M, Bailey A, Lord C. The social communication questionnaire: manual. Western psychological services; 2003.

  52. Thelen E. Motor development: a new synthesis. Am Psychol. 1995;50(2):79–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kugler PN, Kelso JS, Turvey MT. On the concept of coordinative structures as dissipative structures: I. Theoretical lines of convergence. In: Advances in psychology 1980 (Vol. 1). North-Holland. pp. 3–47.

  54. Kamm K, Thelen E, Jensen JL. A dynamical systems approach to motor development. Phys Ther. 1990;70(12):763–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. • Wilson PH, Smits-Engelsman B, Caeyenberghs K, Steenbergen B. Toward a hybrid model of developmental coordination disorder. Curr Dev Disord Rep. 2017;4(3):64–71 This paper provides a variant model of motor behaviour based on the constraint-led approach to motor development.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Henderson SE, Sugden DA, Barnett AL. Movement assessment battery for children-2. Harcourt Assessment; 2007.

  57. Bruininks RH. Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency. Circle Pines: AGS Publishing; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ulrich DA. The test of gross motor development-3 (TGMD-3): administration, scoring, and international norms. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi. 2013;24(2):27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  59. • Logan SW, Barnett LM, Goodway JD, Stodden DF. Comparison of performance on process-and product-oriented assessments of fundamental motor skills across childhood. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(7):634–41 This paper compares process and product-oriented assessment tools.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ulrich DA. Test of gross motor development (2nd ed.). (TGMD-2). Austin: Pro-Ed; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Clark JE, Phillips SJ. A developmental sequence of the standing long jump. In: Clark JE, Humphrey JH, editors. Motor development: current selected research. Princeton: Princeton Book. p. 73–85.

  62. Kiphard EJ, Schilling F. Körperkoordinationstest für kinder: KTK. Beltz-Test; 2007.

  63. Stott DH, Moyes F, Henderson SE. Test of motor impairment: manual. Brook Educational Pub.; 1984.

  64. Hands B, Licari M, Piek J. A review of five tests to identify motor coordination difficulties in young adults. Res Dev Disabil. 2015;41-42:40–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Henderson SE, Sugden DA, Barnett A, Smits-Engelsman BCM. Movement assessment battery for children-2 Pearson education, Amsterdam. 2010.

  66. • Barnett A, Peters J. Motor proficiency assessment batteries. In: Dewey, Tupper, editors. Developmental motor disorders: a neuropsychological perspective. New-York, Guilford; 2004. An interesting resource exploring motor assessment tools from a neurophysiological viewpoint.

  67. Chow SM, Henderson SE, Barnett AL. The movement assessment battery for children: a comparison of 4-year-old to 6-year-old children from Hong Kong and the United States. Am J Occup Ther. 2001;55(1):55–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Chow SM, Hsu YW, Henderson SE, Barnett AL, Lo SK. The movement ABC: a cross-cultural comparison of preschool children from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the USA. Adapt Phys Act Q. 2006;23(1):31–48.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Brown T. Structural validity of the Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency-second edition brief form. Res Dev Disabil. 2018;85:92–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Lane H, Brown T. Convergent validity of two motor skill tests used to assess school-age children. Scand J Occup Ther. 2015;22(3):161–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Ulrich DA. The reliability of classification decisions made with the objectives-based motor skill assessment instrument. Adapt Phys Act Q. 1984;1(1):52–60.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Wilson P, Green D, Caeyenberghs K, Steenbergen B, Duckworth J. Integrating new technologies into the treatment of CP and DCD. Curr Dev Disord Rep. 2016;3(2):138–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

    Emmanuel Bonney & Bouwien Smits-Engelsman

Authors
  1. Emmanuel Bonney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bouwien Smits-Engelsman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bouwien Smits-Engelsman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Bouwien Smits-Engelsman reports personal fees from joint authorship of the Dutch standardization of the M-ABC2. Emmanuel Bonney declares no conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Motor Disorders

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bonney, E., Smits-Engelsman, B. Movement Skill Assessment in Children: Overview and Recommendations for Research and Practice. Curr Dev Disord Rep 6, 67–77 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-019-00160-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-019-00160-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation