Motor skill assessment in children with Down Syndrome: relationship between performance-based and teacher-report measures.
Use both a performance test and a teacher checklist to catch the full motor story in kids with Down syndrome.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team compared two motor tests for kids with Down syndrome. One test is the TGMD-2. Kids run, jump, and throw while the tester scores each move. The other test is the MABC-C. Teachers fill out a checklist about the child’s everyday motor skills.
The study also tested kids without disabilities. Researchers wanted to see if the two tests agreed in both groups.
What they found
The tests matched better for typical kids than for kids with Down syndrome. In Down syndrome, scores on the two tools were all over the map. A child could score high on the movement test but low on the teacher form, or the other way around.
Because the link is weak, using only one test can miss skills or problems.
How this fits with other research
Ohan et al. (2015) looked at fine-motor drawing in Down syndrome. They found kids drew fast but sloppy. That paper and this one both show motor scores change depending on how you measure.
Wang et al. (2012) linked better TGMD-2-like standing and walking skills to less wobble on a force plate. Their finding supports the TGMD-2 side of today’s paper.
Dudley et al. (2019) added a dual-task: kids stood up while holding a ball. Surprisingly, the extra task made kids with Down syndrome sway less, not more. This seems to clash with today’s weak TGMD-2/MABC-C link, but the studies test different things. TGMD-2 looks at skill quality; sway studies look at balance strategy. Both can be true.
Bo et al. (2014) used the same two-tool idea in kids with coordination disorder. They also saw that MABC scores matched timing problems in handwriting. The pattern shows the dual-assessment idea works across diagnoses.
Why it matters
If you only give the movement test, you may label a child as skilled while teachers see spills and bumps every day. If you only use the teacher form, you may miss hidden strengths the child shows in structured tasks. Run both TGMD-2 and MABC-C. Compare the numbers, then watch the child play and work. This mix gives the truest picture and guides smarter goals.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Schedule one TGMD-2 session and send the MABC-C to the PE teacher, then plot both scores side-by-side before the next IEP meeting.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
of previous studies show a large interindividual variability with regard to motor skills and motor abilities in children with Down Syndrome (DS). In order to provide detailed information for intervention, adequate assessment methods seem to be necessary to address the child's unique motor profile. Typically, children are either examined using a bottom-up (performance-based assessment of motor skills) or a top-down approach (e.g. client-report measure), but rarely both approaches. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between standardized performance-based, and teacher-report measures of children's motor performance. The performance- and process-based assessment Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2), and the teacher-based Movement Assessment Battery - Checklist (MABC-C) for young children were used to assess the motor performance of 18 children with DS (11 boys, 7 girls) aged 7-11 years (M = 9.06, SD = 0.96) and an age- and sex-matched sample of typically developing (TD) 18 children (11 boys, 7 girls; M = 8.99, SD = 0.93). TD children achieve consistently better results compared to children with DS, both in the TGMD-2 and MABC-C, which differ significantly in most cases. When gender differences were examined for the TGMD-2 scores, boys with DS were better performers of the run, gallop, leap, and catch, as well as the locomotor and object-control skill sum scores, whereas girls of the TD group were more proficient in these areas. TD children achieve significantly better results in 21 out of 28 items of Section A+B of the MABC-C, compared to the children with DS; whereas there are no significant differences for Section C (non-motor factors). Our results show more significant relationships between TGMD-2 and MABC-C sub- and overall scores for the TD sample compared to the children with DS. The correlations range between r = -.21 and -.65 for TD children and between r = -.15 and -.65 for the children with DS. The correlations between both approaches show that the combination of both methods could be useful in getting a more detailed picture of the child's individual motor profile in order to create tailor-made therapies and interventions, both for children with DS and TD children.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2014 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2014.08.001