Concurrent validation of the MABC-2 Motor Tests and MABC-2 Checklist according to the Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire-BR

Abstract

The Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd Ed (MABC-2), comprised of motor tests and a questionnaire (Checklist), has been used by several nationalities to identify problems in children's motor behavior. However, the level of agreement between the motor tests and the checklist has been questioned. So, this study aimed to test the level of competition between the MABC-2 motor test and MABC-2 Checklist, controlled by the Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ-BR) as the gold reference. Parents of 40 children and 16 teachers responded to the MABC-2 Checklist and the DCDQ-BR. Later 40 children were evaluated using the MABC-2 motor test. No significant congruence among a comparison of the MABC-2 motor tests, MABC-2 Checklist and DCDQ-BR was observed. The results indicated that there is no concurrent validity between the MABC-2 motor tests and the DCDQ-BR test, whereas the MABC-2 Checklist showed low levels of concurrent validity with the DCDQ-BR.

Concurrent validation of the MABC-2 and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire-BR

“…Schoemaker et al 20 assessed children aged 5-8 years and found smaller albeit a signifi cant correlation between MABC and DCDQ (r= 0.36; p < 0.001). A smaller study of Brazilian children conducted by Capistrano et al 19 found no association between the instruments. These discrepancies may be related to methodological aspects, such as small group sizes.…”

“…However, other studies have shown larger differences regarding the prevalence of motor problems among children between the two instruments. Pannekoek et al 22 and Capistrano et al 19 suggested that this discrepancy can be explained due to methodological aspects used in the construction of the research tools 27 as well as varying cutoff points used to identify problems in different motor tests.…”

“…In China, researchers evaluated 1.823 children and found that the MABC-2 motor battery and DCDQ were correlated, concluding that MABC has good reliability and validity. In Brazil, a pioneer study developed by Capistrano et al 19 did not reveal significant congruence between the MABC-2 motor battery and DCDQ-BR. Given this lack of consensus, the present study seeks to provide a basis for growth and assessment consolidation in motor performance.…”

“…In light of this information, some studies have verified the concordance between the MABC-2 motor battery and the gold standard, DCDQ 19 . In the Netherlands, authors found a high correlation between DCDQ and MABC-2 in children aged 6-11 years 20 .…”

Psychometric properties of observational tools for identifying motor difficulties – a systematic review

“… Netelenbos [ 61 ] Strength: -Good reliability To be developed: -No sensitivity and specificity scores M-ABC-C / M-ABC-2-C UK 5.4–15.6 yrs. Capistrano et al [ 72 ]; De Milander [ 73 ]; Green et al [ 67 ]; Junaid et al [ 63 ]; Piek & Edwards [ 43 ]; Schoemaker et al [ 25 ]; Schoemaker et al [ 44 ]; Wright et al [ 45 ]; Wright & Sugden [ 74 ] Strengths: -Some good test–retest reliability scores -Translated in many countries To be developed: -Too long and time-consuming -Very low sensitivity: none of the studies met the required criteria -Inter-rater reliability not studied MOQ-T Netherlands 5–11 yrs. Asunta et al [ 41 ]; Giofre et al [ 42 ]; Schoemaker et al [ 62 ] Strengths: - Good construct validity - Sensitivity met the criteria - Good discriminant validity and concurrent validity - High internal consistency - Good sample sizes - Both population and clinical referred samples - Fast to fill, usability good To be developed: - Specificity is slightly too low - Inter-rater and test–retest reliability not studied TEAF Canada 6–11 yrs.…”