Reliability and responsiveness of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-Second Edition in children with intellectual disability.

Wuang et al. (2009) gave the full BOT-2 motor test twice to children with intellectual disability.

They waited about two weeks between tests. Then they checked if each child’s scores stayed the same.

The goal was to see if the test can spot real change instead of random noise.

Scores on the full BOT-2 stayed very steady. A jump or drop of 5 points or more on the total scale means true change, not luck.

Most subtests also moved little, so you can trust small gains or losses.

Brown (2019) later showed the 14-item BOT-2-BF brief form is psychometrically weak. Ted’s team trimmed it to 5 items that fit the math model. This update does not erase Yee-Pay’s work; it just warns us to use the full test or the new 5-item set, not the old short form.

Cummings et al. (2024) used the same BOT-2 gross-motor subtests in youth with ID. They found body weight hardly links to motor skill. This builds on Yee-Pay by showing the test is useful no matter the child’s BMI.

Lin et al. (2012) set change thresholds for the PMAL hand-use log in cerebral palsy. Both studies give clear cut-offs so clinicians can say, “This score jump is real.”

You now have a solid rule: if a child with ID gains 5 or more points on the full BOT-2 total scale, the change is real. No need to guess. Use the full battery or the new 5-item brief form, skip the old 14-item version, and feel confident tracking motor progress in your treatment notes.