Psychometric properties of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (MABC-2): an analysis based on the Item Response Theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36311/jhgd.v32.11041Keywords:
motor performance, motor evaluation, psychometricsAbstract
Introduction: The American Psychiatric Association reveals that 6% of school-age children have developmental coordination disorder.
Objective: This study aimed at assessing the suitability of the tasks proposed by the MABC-2 motor assessment instrument based on the psychometric properties of such an instrument and the analysis of the Item Response Theory.
Methods: 582 children ranging in age from 3 to 5 years old of both sexes participated in the study. The motor tasks suitability for children was verified by using the Gradual Response Model, and applying the Maximum Likelihood Estimation method.
Results: The motor task ‘bicycle trail’ showed a lower discriminatory power and was removed from the analysis. Considering the ‘Aiming & Catching’ dimension, ‘Threading Beads’ was the motor task with the highest degree of difficulty. Regarding balance, the ‘One Leg Balance’ task was classified as having a high degree of difficulty; on the other hand, the motor tasks ‘Jumping on mats’ and ‘Catching Beanbag’ required below average motor performance levels, that is, they are tasks with low discrimination capacity. The results showed that the low discriminative capacity of some MABC-2 items regarding this study sample makes it difficult to correctly classify the child’s general motor performance level.
Conclusion: The findings show that there is a need to review the suitability of the MABC-2 motor tasks in order to equate the difficulty and discriminatory capacity of the tasks so that standardization more appropriate to the reality of children from different populations is established.
Downloads
References
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. PNAD Contínua 2018: Educação avança no país, mas desigualdades raciais e por região persistem. Brasil: IBGE. [website]. Available from: https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/agencia-sala-de-imprensa/2013-agencia-de-noticias/releases/24857-pnad-continua-2018-educacao-avanca-no-pais-mas-desigualdades-raciais-e-por-regiao-persistem
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author; 2013.
Jaikaew R, Satiansukpong N. Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (MABC2): Cross-Cultural validity, content validity, and interrater reliability in Thai Children. Occup Ther Int. 2019; 3(2019): 4086594. DOI: 10.1155/2019/4086594
Valentini NC, Coutinho MT, Pansera SM, Santos VAP, Vieira JLL, Ramalho MH, et al. Prevalência de déficits motores e desordem coordenativa desenvolvimental em crianças da região Sul do Brasil. Revi Paul Pediatr. 2012; 30: 377-384. DOI: 10.1590/S0103-05822012000300011
Caçola P. Movement difficulties affect children’s learning: An Overview of Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD). Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2014; (2): 98-106. DOI: 10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I2-5279
Martins R, Lisboa T, Lopes J, Beltrame TS. Concordância entre testes concorrentes para identificação de crianças com Transtorno do Desenvolvimento da Coordenação. Cad. Bras. Ter. Ocup. 2020; 28; 2: 500-510. DOI: 10.4322/2526-8910.ctoao1938
Barbacena M, Petten AMVN, Ferreira DL, Magalhães LC. Cognitive level and developmental coordination disorder: study with schoolchildren aged 7 to 10 years old. Cad. Bras. Ter. Ocup. 2019; 27(3): 534-544. DOI: 10.4322/2526-8910.ctoao1839
Pizzo GC, Amaro GFN, Silva PN, Caruzzo NM, Vieira, JLL, Nazario PF. Ambiente domiciliar e desempenho motor de pré-escolares. Caderno de Educação Física e Esporte. 2013; 11(2): 01-08.
Ray-Kaeser S, Thommen E, Martini R, Jover M, Gurtner B, Bertrand AM. Psychometric assessment of the French European Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ-FE). PLOS ONE. 2019; 14(5): e0217280. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217280
Lee K, Jung T, Lee K, Lim J-C, Lee E, Jung Y, et al. A comparison of using the DSM-5 and MABC-2 for estimating the developmental coordination disorder prevalence in Korean children. Res Dev Disabil. 2019; 94: 103459. DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2019.103459
Kwok C, Mackay M, Agnew JA, Synnes A, Zwicker JG. Does the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 at 3 years of age predict developmental coordination disorder at 4.5 years of age in children born very preterm? Res Dev Disabil. 2019; 84:36-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2018.04.003.
Cunningham AC, Delport S, Cumines W, Busse M, Linden DEJ, Hall J, et al. Developmental coordination disorder, psychopathology and IQ in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. British J Psychiatry. 2018; 212(1), 27–33. DOI:10.1192/bjp.2017.6
Smits-Engelsman BCM, Niemeijer AS, Van Waelvelde H. Is the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2nd edition a reliable instrument to measure motor performance in 3 year old children? Res Dev Disabil. 2011; (32): 1370-1377. DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.031
Brown T, Lalor A. The Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (MABC-2): A review and critique. Phys. Occup. Ther. Pediatr. 2009; 29(1): 86–103. DOI: 10.1080/01942630802574908
Serbetar I, Loftesnes JM, Mamen A. Reliability and structural validity of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 in Croatian preschool children. Sports. 2019; 7: 248. DOI:10.3390/sports7120248
Psotta R, Abdollahipour R. Factorial Validity of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children—2nd Edition (MABC-2) in 7-16-Year-Olds. Percept. Mot. Ski. 2017; 124(6): 1051–1068. DOI:10.1177/0031512517729951
Hirata S, Kita Y, Yasunaga M, Suzuki K, Okumura Y, Okuzumi H, et al. Applicability of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (MABC-2) for Japanese children aged 3–6 years: A preliminary investigation emphasizing internal consistency and factorial validity. Front Psychol. 2018; 9: 1452. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01452
Valentini NC, Ramalho MH, Oliveira MA. Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2: Translation, reliability, and validity for Brazilian children. Res Dev Disabil. 2014; 35(3): 733–740. DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.10.028
Henderson S, Sugden DA, Barnett A. Movement assessment battery for children. 2ª edition. San Antonio: Harcourt Assessment; 2007.
Samejima F. The graded response model. In: Linden WJ, Hambleton, R, editors. Handbook of modern item response theory. New York, NY: Springer; 1996. p. 85-100.
Wright BD, Linacre JM. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Meas Trans. 1994; 8(2): 370.
Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc; 1978.
Nazario PF, Ferreira L, Both J, Vieira JLL. Movement Assessment Battery for Children - Second Edition: Adequação teórica do modelo do instrumento de avaliação motora. Rev Paul Pediatr. In Press, 2022.
Tezza R, Bornia AC, Andrade DFD. Measuring web usability using item response theory: principles, features and opportunities. Interact Comput. 2011; 23(2): 167-175. DOI: 10.1016/j.intcom.2011.02.004
Hua J, Gu G, Weng W, Wu Z. Age band 1 of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition: Exploring its usefulness in mainland China. Res Dev Disabil. 2013; 34(2): 801-808. DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2012.10.012
Wagner MO, Kastner J, Petermann F, Bös K. Factorial validity of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (age band 2). Res Dev Disabil. 2011; (32): 674-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2010.11.016
Chow SMK, Henderson SE, Barnett AL. The movement assessment battery for children: a comparison of 4-year-old to 6-year-old children from Hong Kong and de United States. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2001; 55: 55-61. DOI: 10.5014/ajot.55.1.55
Bakke HA, Sarinho SW, Cattuzzo MT. Estudo da multidimensionalidade do MABC-2 (7 a 10 anos) em crianças da região metropolitana de Recife-PE. J Phys Educ. 2018; 29: e29xx. DOI: 10.4025/jphyseduc.v29i1.2939J
Ellinoudis T, Evaggelinou C, Kourtessis T, Konstantinidou Z, Venetsanou F, Kambas A. Reliability and validity of age band 1 of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children – Second Edition. Res Dev Disabil. 2011; 32(3): 1046-1051. DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.035
Feder KP, Majnemer A. Handwriting development, competency, and intervention. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2007; 49(4): 312–317. DOI:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.00312.x
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Nazario PF, Ferreira L, Caruzzo NM, dos Santos VAP, Vieira JLL
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
