Motor competence assessments for children with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: a systematic review

Samantha J Downs; Lynne M Boddy; Bronagh McGrane; James R Rudd; Craig A Melville; Lawrence Foweather

doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2020-000902

Motor competence assessments for children with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: a systematic review

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2020 Nov 19;6(1):e000902. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2020-000902. eCollection 2020.

Authors

Samantha J Downs¹, Lynne M Boddy¹, Bronagh McGrane², James R Rudd¹, Craig A Melville³, Lawrence Foweather¹

Affiliations

¹ Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.
² School of Arts Education and Movement, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
³ Institute of Health and Well-being, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Abstract

Objective: Gross motor competence is essential for daily life functioning and participation in physical activities. Prevalence of gross motor competence in children with intellectual disabilities (ID) and/or autism is unclear. This systematic review aimed to identify appropriate assessments for children with ID and/or autism.

Design & data sources: An electronic literature search was conducted using the EBSCOhost platform searching MEDLINE, Education Research Complete, ERIC, CINAHL Plus and SPORTDiscus databases.

Eligibility criteria: Included studies sampled children with ID and/or autism aged between 1 and 18 yrs, used field-based gross motor competence assessments, reported measurement properties, and were published in English. The utility of assessments were appraised for validity, reliability, responsiveness and feasibility.

Results: The initial search produced 3182 results, with 291 full text articles screened. 13 articles including 10 assessments of motor competence were included in this systematic review. There was limited reporting across measurement properties, mostly for responsiveness and some aspects of validity. The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-2 followed by The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 demonstrated the greatest levels of evidence for validity and reliability. Feasibility results were varied, most instruments required little additional equipment (n=8) and were suitable for a school setting, but, additional training (n=7) was needed to score and interpret the results.

Conclusion: This review found the BOT-2 followed by the TGMD-2 to be the most psychometrically appropriate motor competency assessments for children with ID and/or autism in field-based settings. Motor competence assessment research is limited for these cohorts and more research is needed.

Prospero registration number: CRD42019129464.

Keywords: Adolescent; Children; Fitness testing; Measurement; Physical activity.

Publication types

Systematic Review