Psychometric comparisons of three measures for assessing motor functions in preschoolers with intellectual disabilities.
Among three common motor tests for preschoolers with ID, PDMS-2 gives the clearest picture of skill growth.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team lined up three popular motor tests for preschoolers with intellectual disabilities. They checked each tool for reliability, validity, and how well it tracks small gains.
Kids took all three tests so the researchers could compare floor effects, ceiling effects, and overall scores.
What they found
All three tools passed basic psychometric checks, but PDMS-2 came out on top. It had the fewest kids scoring at the very bottom or top, so it shows room to grow.
That means PDMS-2 is less likely to miss small improvements during therapy.
How this fits with other research
Takahashi et al. (2023) meta-analysis shows kids with ID lag far behind peers on every motor skill. Their large deficit numbers line up with Wuang et al. (2012): you need a test that can spot small gains, because the gap is huge.
Chezan et al. (2019) review finds motor training helps balance and overall skills, but effects on ball skills remain unclear. Using PDMS-2, which captured those small gains best, could clarify future trials.
Sun et al. (2011) validated a new quality scale against the same TGMD-2. Both studies agree TGMD-2 is solid, yet Wuang et al. (2012) still crown PDMS-2 as the safer pick for kids with ID.
Why it matters
If you run motor programs for preschoolers with ID, pick PDMS-2 for intake and progress checks. Its low floor and ceiling give you room to see real change, even when skills start very low. Pair it with short balance drills shown effective by Chezan et al. (2019) and you can document gains that other tests might miss.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Switch your motor intake tool to PDMS-2 and plot baseline standard scores before starting balance drills.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Deficit in motor performance is common in children with intellectual disabilities (ID). A motor function measure with sound psychometric properties is indispensable for clinical and research use. The purpose of this study was to compare the psychometric properties of three commonly used clinical measures for assessing motor function in preschoolers with ID: the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-Second Edition, the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale-Second Edition (PDMS-2). METHOD: One hundred and ninety-one children aged 3-6 years with ID were evaluated with the three measures at three time points: two baseline measurements with a 1-week interval before the intervention, and a follow-up measurement after 6 months of paediatric rehabilitation programme. One hundred and forty-one participants completed all of the assessments. The distribution (ceiling and floor effects) and reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability) of each measure were examined. Concurrent validity, predictive validity, and responsiveness were examined as well. RESULTS: All measures, except for the PDMS-2, had significant floor effects or ceiling effects at one or more time points. The three measures had good internal consistency (Cronbach α ≥ 0.86) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ 0.96). The Spearman ρ correlation coefficient for each pair of the three measures was ≥ 0.80, indicating high concurrent validity. The predictive validity of the three measures was satisfactory (Spearman ρ ≥ 0.52). The responsiveness of the three measures was moderate (0.47 ≤ effect size ≤ 0.74). The minimal detectable changes of the three measures were satisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: All three measures showed sufficient reliability, validity and responsiveness in preschoolers with ID, but the PDMS-2 is recommended for its superior psychometric properties.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2012 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01491.x