New Perspectives on the Assessment of Movement Skills and Motor Abilities

Abstract

The practice of adapted physical education should be consistent with a theoretical model of motor behavior. We believe that the dominant view of movement skills, motor abilities, and general motor ability, as expressed in the current literature, often is not congruent with assessment instruments currently used in adapted physical education. The purpose of this paper is to review the dominant conceptualization of skills, abilities, and general motor ability; present four problems with the dominant view related to assessment in adapted physical education; and then offer a new perspective based on a four-level taxonomy. The levels of the proposed taxonomy are movement skills, movement skill sets, movement skill foundations, and general motor ability.

Assessment of Motor Functioning in the Preschool Period

“…This implies that there is a single trait for motor ability, a general motor ability (GMA), which is a contentious issue. Despite the arguments against this, Burton and Rodgerson (2001) argue that "the overall composite scores in most movement assessment instruments provide at least rough estimates of GMA" (p. 362). Therefore these tests serve a purpose.…”

Using Rasch modeling to investigate the construct of motor competence in early childhood

“…Another example is motor competence which refers to the ability to execute a wide variety of motor skills, including both gross (e.g., jumping) and fine motor skills (e.g., manual dexterity) (Haga, 2008). In the context of motor assessment, motor competence can be regarded as general motor ability because -by definition -both are often implicitly measured in assessment tools through a composite score that is built out of a wide range of test items from different motor abilities or motor domains (Burton & Rodgerson, 2001). …”

“…As such, research on the underlying latent trait(s) was mostly conducted using CTT methods like factor analysis and inter-item correlation, which resulted in either hierarchical classification schemes such as muscular strength, endurance, balance and reaction (Bös, 2001;Fleishman, 1964;Rarick, Dobbins, & Broadhead, 1976), or single factor scales (Bruininks, 1978;Calder, 1979;Ulrich, 1985). In spite of limited support for the General Motor Ability Hypothesis provided by CTT studies, the concept of a single latent trait (i.e., motor competence) was included in the taxonomy of Burton and Miller (1998) and underpins many widely used assessments (Burton & Rodgerson, 2001). Burton and Rodgerson (2001) argued that the lack of evidence might be due to an inappropriate analysis approach which has dismissed the construct of motor competence due to low correlations between motor composite scores within and between motor tests.…”

“…In their well-known taxonomy, Burton and Miller (1998) defined movement skills, motor abilities and general motor ability in a hierarchical order with movement skills at the top and general motor ability at the bottom. This taxonomy was further elaborated upon by Burton and Rodgerson (2001). Movement skills are defined as a specific group of goal-directed movement patterns, which can be altered through instruction and practice (Burton & Miller, 1998;Burton & Rodgerson, 2001).…”

“…This taxonomy was further elaborated upon by Burton and Rodgerson (2001). Movement skills are defined as a specific group of goal-directed movement patterns, which can be altered through instruction and practice (Burton & Miller, 1998;Burton & Rodgerson, 2001). Motor abilities are described as "general traits or capacities of an individual, that underlie the performance of a variety of movement skills" (Burton & Miller, 1998).…”