MABC-2 article summary

Posted on: February 28, 2021 | By: kdonaldson4 | Filed under: Movement Assessment Battery for Children (Movement-ABC)

The purpose of this article was the investigate the validity and reliability of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC-2) in a sample of Croatian children from the ages 3-6 years old. 683 children participated in this study with 33 who were not included in the analyses due to not completing all parts of the test. The MABC-2 consists of testing three different areas of motor performance: balance, aiming and catching, as well as manual dexterity. Manual dexterity consists of drawing a trail, posting coins, and threading beads. Catching and aiming consists of throwing and catching a bean bag. Balance consists of one-leg balance, walking with heels raised, and jumping on the mats. For all things involving one extremity, both dominant and non-dominant limbs were tested. Interclass correlation coefficients (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), and smallest detectable change (SDC) were collected in this research to test the reliability and validity of this outcome measure. They found the ICC score overall to fall into the “good” category and reported the MABC-2 to be an appropriate tool to investigate the motor development of preschool-aged children.

This article was well written and clearly explained what statistics were used and how they turned out. The authors explained what the data meant and had the data to back it up. I do wish the article provided a copy of instructions to the MABC-2. I believe a copy of the set up would have helped provide a clearer picture of what was happening. Also, it was unclear how often the children were truly tested on these measures. Despite the lack of a clear picture of how the children were tested, it helped that the authors compared their findings to other research on this study taking place in Brazil and Britain. Comparing across cultures helped show the generalizability and the potential differences in culture when it comes to the motor development.

Overall, this article was constructed well in my opinion, but could have been better with a few additions. They focused on their data and statistics and appeared to be straightforward with their findings. I do believe that an addition of the MABC-2 would have been appropriate, but they showed how their results compared to other countries. The authors pointed out their potential shortcomings and helped guide research further on this outcomes measure. Based on the data in the article, it is safe to say this outcomes measure is appropriate for testing children ages 3-6 years old in their motor development.

 

Leave a Reply