Strength of relationship between body mass index and gross motor capacity in youth with intellectual disabilities.
BMI gives zero clues about gross motor skill in youth with ID, so test movement directly.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team weighed the kids and teens with intellectual disability. They split them into two groups: before and after puberty.
Each child took the BOT-2 gross motor test. The researchers checked if higher body weight matched lower motor scores.
What they found
BMI and every BOT-2 subtest showed almost no link. The strongest correlation was 0.24, which is tiny.
Weight status told us nothing useful about balance, running, or strength in either age group.
How this fits with other research
Sasson et al. (2022) also used simple motor tests, but in adults with Down syndrome. Their work extends ours by showing that short tests like TUG still work when IQ is low.
Chen et al. (2013) looked at predictors too, but in kids with cerebral palsy. They found knee strength forecasted gains, while we found BMI did not. Same design, different predictor, same motor tool — the contrast shows muscle power matters, fat mass does not.
González-Agüero et al. (2011) warned that BMI misses obesity in Down-syndrome youths. Our paper adds: even if BMI were accurate, it still would not help you guess motor skill level.
Why it matters
Stop using weight to decide who needs motor help. Run the BOT-2, the TUG, or any quick movement test instead. You will catch delays earlier and avoid bias against heavier kids.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Schedule the BOT-2 balance subtest for every new client, no matter their weight.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Adequate skill levels of gross motor capacity affect activities of daily living, participation in recreational activities and general physical activity levels of youths (7-21 years). Most studies of typically developing youths have reported significant negative relationships between gross motor capacity and body mass index. The latter findings are especially of concern for youths with intellectual disabilities in that it has been estimated that 61% of children and 66% of adolescents were classified as overweight/obese. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the strength of the relationship between body mass index and gross motor capacity among youths with mild to moderate intellectual disability (ID). METHODS: Components of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOT-2) were used for designated aspects of gross motor capacity: six items for upper limb coordination (ULC); seven items for balance (BAL); six items for bilateral coordination (BLC); and one item for agility (A-2). Participants consisted of 654 youths (438 men), ages 8-21 years with ID. Participants were divided into pre-puberty and post-puberty men (post ≥12 years) and women (post ≥10 years of age). Body mass index (BMI, kg/m2) was determined by height and weight measurements on the day of testing. A Kendall's tau correlation coefficient (τ) was used to determine the strength of the relationship between body mass index and gross motor capacity (BOT-2 test scores). RESULTS: The τ values for both pre-puberty and post-puberty for all BAL, BLC, A-2 tests and for three of the six ULC tests were negligible to very weak (τ = 0 to ±0.19). Higher τ values were seen for pre-puberty youths in three of the ULC tests, but they fell within the weak range (τ < 0.24). When combining all pre-puberty and post-puberty participants, τ values were in the negligible to very weak range for all tests. CONCLUSION: The strength of relationship between body mass index and gross motor capacity as measured by the BOT-2 subtest item scores used in this study is very weak and suggests that they are not clinically relevant.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2024 · doi:10.1111/jir.13168