The Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) measures fundamental motor skills competency and is frequently used for eligibility determination of adapted physical education services in children with disabilities. The purpose of this study was to determine if the TGMD-3 is clinically sensitive to detect deficits in the fundamental motor skills of children with disabilities (i.e., intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, language and articulation disorders). Eighty-five children with disabilities and 85 matched controls (i.e., typically developing, individually matched on age, sex, ethnicity, and race) completed the TGMD-3. Mann–Whitney U tests identified significant differences in the total TGMD-3 scores for children with intellectual disability (p < .001), autism spectrum disorder (p < .001), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (p = .032). No differences were identified for children with language and articulation disorders. Comparisons of subscales (i.e., locomotor and ball skills) differed across disability groups. This study provides evidence that the TGMD-3 is clinically sensitive to identify deficits in fundamental motor skills competency.
You are looking at 1 - 10 of 18 items for
- Author: E. Kipling Webster x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
E. Andrew Pitchford and E. Kipling Webster
E. Kipling Webster and Dale A. Ulrich
With recent revisions, the evaluation of the reliability and validity of the Test of Gross Motor Development—3rd edition (TGMD-3) is necessary. The TGMD-3 was administered to 807 children (M age = 6.33 ± 2.09 years; 52.5% male). Reliability assessments found that correlations with age were moderate to large; ball skills had a higher correlation (r = .47) compared with locomotor skills (r = .39). Internal consistency was very high in each age group and remained excellent for all racial/ethnic groups and both sexes. Test-retest reliability had high ICC agreements for the locomotor (ICC = 0.97), ball skills (ICC = 0.95), and total TGMD-3 (ICC = 0.97). For validity measures, the TGMD-3 had above acceptable item difficulty (range = 0.43–0.91) and item discrimination values (range = 0.34–0.67). EFA supported a one-factor structure of gross motor skill competence for the TGMD-3 with 73.82% variance explained. CFA supported the one-factor model (χ2(65) = 327.61, p < .001, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .10), showing acceptable construct validity for the TGMD-3. Preliminary results show the TGMD-3 exhibits high levels of validity and reliability, providing confidence for the usage and collection of new norms.
E. Kipling Webster, Danielle D. Wadsworth, and Leah E. Robinson
This study examined the acute effects of a 10-min teacher-implemented classroom-based activity break (AB) on physical activity participation and time on-task in a preschool-age population. 118 (M age = 3.80 ± 0.69 years) students from one preschool served as participants. The intervention took place over 4 days: 2 days AB were conducted and 2 days typical instruction occurred. Physical activity was monitored via accelerometry and time on-task was measured by direct observation. Results demonstrated that AB led to a higher percent of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) during the AB (M = 29.7%, p > .001). Breaks also promoted more on-task behavior (F U17 = 18.86, p > .001) following the AB. Specifically, the most off-task students before the break improved on-task behavior by 30 percentage points (p > .001). Percent of school day MVPA was also higher during AB days (i 117 = 3.274, p = .001). Findings indicate teachers may improve time on-task postbreak for preschoolers with a short bout of physical activity in the classroom, especially in children who are the most off-task. In addition, classroom-based AB resulted in marginal increases in MVPA during breaks that influenced whole day activity.
ZáNean McClain, E. Andrew Pitchford, and E. Kipling Webster
E. Kipling Webster, Leah E. Robinson, and Danielle D. Wadsworth
Background: Activity breaks are an established way physical activity may be incorporated into the preschool day. The purpose of this study was to examine what factors influenced moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) during a teacher-implemented classroom-based activity break (CBAB) in a Head Start population. Methods: Ten-minute CBAB was conducted over 2 days in a quasi-experimental design; 99 preschoolers (mean age 3.80 [0.65] y; 49.5% male) from a convenience sample participated. Accelerometers measured MVPA, fundamental motor skill competency was assessed using the Test of Gross Motor Development—second edition, and weight classification status used body mass index percentiles. Results: A significant, moderate regression was found (r = .328, P = .001) between fundamental motor skill and MVPA. There was no significant correlation between body mass index percentile and MVPA during the CBAB. In addition, the locomotor subscale was the best predictor for MVPA for children during the CBAB (r = .32, β = 0.82, P < .001). Conclusions: CBAB equally elicited MVPA for normal and overweight preschoolers. Fundamental motor skill competency was associated with MVPA during the CBAB; in particular, locomotor skills were the best predictor for physical activity. Structured activity opportunities that focus on locomotor skills may be a useful integration to prompt more MVPA in a preschool-age population.
Matthias O. Wagner, E. Kipling Webster, and Dale A. Ulrich
The Test of Gross Motor Development, 3rd Edition (TGMD-3) is a process-oriented fundamental movement skill assessment to examine the movement patterns displayed by children between the ages of 3 and 10 years. Within this paper, results of a pilot study on the reliability, validity, and measurement invariance across gender of the TGMD-3 (German translation) are presented. In total, performances of 189 typically developing children (99 boys, 90 girls, 56 kindergarten children, 133 elementary school children, M age = 7.15 ± 2.02 years) are analyzed. Results provide preliminary evidence for test-retest, interrater and intrarater reliability, internal consistency, age- and gender- specific performance trends, factorial validity, measurement invariance across gender, divergent validity, and ball skill–related concurrent and predictive validity of the TGMD-3 (German translation). Subsequent research should be focused on a verification of the present findings on a representative database to foster the application of the TGMD-3 (German translation) in different settings.
Priscila Tamplain, E. Kipling Webster, Ali Brian, and Nadia C. Valentini
Assessment of the motor domain is a critical aspect of understanding motor development. Measurement of motor development is the baseline to understand potential delays and to promote the tools for change and improvement of this domain. This paper aims to reflect on the construct of motor development and the process of assessing motor performance. We review the use of assessments in motor development research and discuss issues of validity, reliability, sensitivity, and specificity. We appraise selected assessments, describe how the use of assessments changed over the periods of study in motor development, and examine the contemporary status of assessments and its applications. Finally, and most importantly, we provide suggestions and recommendations for future directions in the field, as well as pose important questions for researchers and practitioners to consider when selecting, using, and interpreting assessment results. In light of the contemporary view of motor development and the increasing focus on health applications, we recommend the use of screening tools, short forms, and technology, as well as encouraging the use of and more research on motor development assessments in childhood.
Nadia C. Valentini, Larissa W. Zanella, and E. Kipling Webster
The Test of Gross Motor Development is used to identify children’s level of motor proficiency, specifically to detect motor delays. This study aimed to translate the TGMD-3 items and assess reliability and content and construct validity for the TGMD-3 in Brazil. A cross-cultural translation was used to generate a Brazilian Portuguese version of the TGMD-3. The validation process involved 33 professionals and 597 Brazilian children (ages 3–10) from the five main geographic regions of Brazil. The results confirmed language clarity and pertinence, as well as face validity of the TGMD-3. High intrarater (.60 to .90) and interrater (.85 to .99) reliability was evident, and test-retest temporal stability was confirmed (locomotor .93; ball skills .81). Adequate internal consistency was present for the skills-to-test and subtests correlations (TGMD-3-BR: α .74; locomotor skills: α .63; ball skills: α .76) and performance-criteria-to-test and -subtest correlations (TGMD-3: α .93; locomotor skills: .90; ball skills: .88). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the construct validity of a two-factor model (RMSEA = .04, 90% confidence interval: .03 to .05; CFI = .94; NFI = .91; TLI = .92; GFI = .94; AGFI = .92). The TGMD-3 is a valid and reliable instrument for Brazilian children.
Lisa M. Barnett, Leah E. Robinson, E. Kipling Webster, and Nicola D. Ridgers
The purpose was to determine the reliability of an instrument designed to assess young children’s perceived movement skill competence in 2 diverse samples.
A pictorial instrument assessed 12 perceived Fundamental Movement Skills (FMS) based on the Test of Gross Motor Development 2nd edition. Intra-Class Correlations (ICC) and internal consistency analyses were conducted. Paired sample t tests assessed change in mean perceived skill scores. Bivariate correlations between the intertrial difference and the mean of the trials explored proportional bias.
Sample 1 (S1) were culturally diverse Australian children (n = 111; 52% boys) aged 5 to 8 years (mean = 6.4, SD = 1.0) with educated parents. Sample 2 (S2) were racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged American children (n = 110; 57% boys) aged 5 to 10 years (mean = 6.8, SD = 1.1). For all children, the internal consistency for 12 FMS was acceptable (S1 = 0.72, 0.75, S2 = 0.66, 0.67). ICCs were higher in S1 (0.73) than S2 (0.50). Mean changes between trials were small. There was little evidence of proportional bias.
Lower values in S2 may be due to differences in study demographic and execution. While the instrument demonstrated reliability/internal consistency, further work is recommended in diverse samples.