Structural validity of the Movement ABC-2 test: factor structure comparisons across three age groups.
The M-ABC-2 keeps its three-part structure across ages, but factor blur creeps in as kids get older.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Schulz et al. (2011) ran a confirmatory factor analysis on the Movement ABC-2. They wanted to see if the three motor sub-scales hold up across three age bands.
Kids took the standard drawing, ball, and balance tasks. The team tested whether the scores clump into Manual Dexterity, Aiming & Catching, and Balance for each age group.
What they found
The three-factor structure fit the data in every age band. The youngest group showed the cleanest pattern; older kids gave more mixed loadings.
In short, the test keeps its promised three-part shape, but the way skills cluster gets more tangled as kids grow.
How this fits with other research
Wagner et al. (2011) ran the same CFA on M-ABC-2 age band 2 the same year and got the same three-factor result. This direct replication boosts trust in the structure.
Zoia et al. (2019) extended the work to Italian children. CFA again supported the three factors, yet Italian norms differed slightly, so country-specific scores matter.
Cameron et al. (1996) used factor analysis on the DBC for psychopathology, not motor skills. Both papers show factor analysis can carve a long checklist into clear clinical domains.
Why it matters
You can keep using the M-ABC-2 three-scale profile to spot motor delays. Just remember that older kids may give fuzzier score patterns, so interpret borderline cases with caution. If you practice outside the UK, check for local norms or you might misclassify typical movers as delayed.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Score the three M-ABC-2 sub-scales as usual, but double-check borderline totals in older kids before labeling delay.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: The Movement ABC test is one of the most widely used assessments in the field of Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD). Improvements to the 2nd edition of the test (M-ABC-2) include an extension of the age range and reduction in the number of age bands as well as revision of tasks. The total test score provides a measure of motor performance, which can be used to help make a diagnosis of DCD. M-ABC-2 also provides 3 sub-scales for Manual Dexterity, Aiming and Catching and Balance but the validity of these conceptually derived sub-scales has not previously been reported. AIM: To examine the factor structure of the M-ABC-2 test across the three age bands (AB): AB1 (3-6-year olds), AB2 (7-10-year olds) and AB3 (11-16-year olds). METHOD: Data from the 2007 standardisation sample (N=1172) were used in this study. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and structural equation modelling (LISREL 8.8) were employed to explore the relationship between the tasks within each of the 3 age bands. A model trimming approach was used to arrive at a well fitting model. RESULTS: In AB1 a complex factor structure emerged providing evidence for an independent general factor, as well as specific factors representing the 3 test components. In AB2 a final model emerged with four correlated factors, an additional distinction being drawn between static and dynamic balance. In addition, a 2nd order general factor explained a considerable amount of variance in each primary factor. In AB3 CFA supported the 3-factor structure of the M-ABC-2, with only modest correlations between each factor. CONCLUSIONS: The confirmatory factor analyses undertaken in this study further validate the structural validity of the M-ABC-2 as it has developed over time. Although its tasks are largely associated with the three sub-components within each age band, there was also clear evidence for a change in the factor structure towards differentiation in motor abilities with age.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2011 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.032