A multiple-method review of accommodations to gross motor assessments commonly used with children and adolescents on the autism spectrum.
Motor tests for autistic youth lack standard accommodations—so write your own demo-plus-break script and use it every time.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The authors read every paper they could find on gross-motor testing for autistic kids and teens. They looked for any mention of extra help given during the test, like longer breaks or repeated demos.
They found that most studies either said nothing about tweaks or listed them only in passing. No paper offered a clear, step-by-step plan for fair testing.
What they found
Extra demonstrations and short breaks were the only fixes used again and again. Everything else—quiet rooms, visual cues, peer models—showed up just once or twice.
Because reports were spotty, we still do not know which tweaks truly help kids show their real skill level.
How this fits with other research
Plant et al. (2007) first showed big balance gaps in teens with autism, but they used ad-hoc test rules. The new review explains why those early numbers may be shaky—no standard extras were set. In short, the 2020 paper updates the 2007 work by pointing out the missing guardrails.
Miltenberger et al. (2013) used wrist sensors and found autistic kids move as much as peers, yet parents say they do fewer kinds of play. The 2020 review adds a practical layer: if we do not test motor skills in a kid-friendly way, we may miss the true picture behind parent reports.
Martín-Díaz et al. (2026) pooled 34 studies and confirmed large balance deficits. Their data rely on the same messy tests that the 2020 paper critiques, so both reviews agree—better, uniform accommodations are overdue.
Why it matters
When a child scores low on a motor test, you need to know if the score reflects real ability or test confusion. This review tells you to write your own checklist: offer extra demos, build in breaks, note lighting and noise, and keep the list the same every time. Share the checklist with parents and teachers so everyone knows the score is fair. Until the field picks a standard, your clear, repeatable tweaks are the best safeguard against false failure labels.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one gross-motor tool you already use, add two extra demos and a 2-minute break midway, then stick to that routine for every kid this week.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The purpose of this study is to understand the common accommodations used during standardized motor assessment of children on the autism spectrum. This study was completed in three parts: (1) a narrative review of the literature; (2) an open-ended survey sent to the first authors of the identified articles; and (3) a descriptive analysis of responses. Results revealed that 56.7% of the identified articles did not report enough information of assessment procedures, 18.9% followed the assessment manual, 16.9% provided accommodations on a needs basis, and 7.5% used a consistent modified protocol. Individual responses showed that extra demonstrations (n = 5) were the most frequent accommodation, followed by extra breaks (n = 3), picture cards (n = 2), and hand-over-hand assistance (n = 1); some respondents stated that they did not provide accommodations. The findings indicate that a clear set of accommodation for motor skill assessments does not exist, though some commonalities were reported. Further research is necessary to understand the impact of accommodations in the assessment process, as well as which accommodations are needed and/or effective.
Autism : the international journal of research and practice, 2020 · doi:10.1177/1362361319884400