Motor competence assessment in children: convergent and discriminant validity between the BOT-2 Short Form and KTK testing batteries.

Fransen et al. (2014) asked if two popular motor tests tell the same story. They gave both the BOT-2 Short Form and the KTK to 2,485 typically developing children.

The team ran correlation and agreement stats to see if scores rise and fall together. They wanted to know if clinicians can swap one test for the other.

Moderate correlations and fair agreement showed up between the two batteries. Neither test copied the other, but they tracked the same broad skill picture.

The authors say one tool is not enough. Using both gives a fuller view of a child's motor competence.

Wuang et al. (2009) extends this work to kids with intellectual disabilities. They trimmed 17 BOT-2 items and made a shorter, more reliable version for that group.

Holm et al. (2013) seems to clash at first glance. They found high measurement error in MABC-2 age band 2, warning against tracking single-child progress. The difference is about the test and the metric, not the kids. Job looked at agreement between two tools; Inger looked at repeatability of one tool.

Chen et al. (2009) also compared motor batteries. They showed that BOTMP and MABC flag different psychosocial risk profiles in children with DCD. Like Job, they conclude that test choice should match the question you need answered.

If you screen or treat motor delays, plan to give both BOT-2 and KTK. One may catch a balance issue the other misses. Keep the shorter BOT-2 for quick snapshots and add KTK when you need a second lens. This dual-battery habit lines up with evidence from ID and DCD studies, giving you stronger data for every IEP or treatment plan.