Exploring Cultural Bias in Two Different Motor Competence Test Batteries When Used in African Children

Bibliographic Data

ID15480559
AuthorsBouwien Smits‐Engelsman (0000-0003-0632-3276, University of Cape Town, corresponding author), Evi Verbecque (0000-0001-8116-1620, Hasselt University), Marisja Denysschen (0000-0003-4015-2108, North-West University), Dané Coetzee (0000-0002-7166-8353, North-West University)
Year2022
Volume19
Issue11
Pages6788-6788
Publication date2022-06-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1661-7827 • E-ISSN: 1660-4601
PublisherMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (PUBLISHER • CH)
DOI10.3390/ijerph19116788
PMID35682371
OpenAlexW4281639449
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited41

Both the Movement Assessment Battery for Children second edition (M-ABC-2) and Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency second edition short form (BOT-2-SF) are frequently used in research and in the clinical practice to evaluate motor competence in children. Despite its widespread use in research, no studies have reported the results of case identification in African children. Comparing these two motor assessment tools for a different target group is important in order to select the most appropriate clinical and research tool. Methods. A total of 444 children performed MABC-2, 165 children also performed the BOT-2-SF and subsamples were tested on specific subtests of the BOT-2 (Running and Agility, Balance, and Strength). Tests were administered to randomly selected children between 6 and 10 years of age. Results: 36% for the children scored at or below the 16th percentile of the MABC-2, while this was 43%, 27%, and 23% for the component score in Manual Dexterity, Aiming and Catching, and Balance, respectively. Of the children 16% scored at or below the 17th percentile of the BOT-2-SF total score, while this was 3%, 9% and 22% for the subtest scores Running and agility, Balance, and Strength, respectively. A moderate correlation (r = 0.44) was found between total scores of the two tests. No significant correlations were found between the dynamic MABC-2 item (Jumping/Hopping) standard scores and any of the 9 balance items of the BOT-2. Conclusion: Far more children scored in the clinical “at risk” range (<16th percentile) when tested with the MABC-2 than with the BOT-2-SF. Overall, these children seemed not to be limited in motor performance measured by the BOT-2-SF, Running and Agility, and Balance. South African children did show lower levels of strength and explosive power. Children from different cultures will need tests for the specific motor skills that are representative for optimal functioning in their own setting. Thus, adapting reference norms and cut-off values may not be the optimal solution

Audiology · Balance (ability · Competence (human resources · Developmental psychology · Gross motor skill · Jumping · Motor skill · Movement assessment · Percentile · Percentile rank · Physical medicine and rehabilitation · Physical therapy · Standard score · Statistics · Test (biology · Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders · Children's Physical and Motor Development · Infant Development and Preterm Care · Mathematics · Medicine · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access