Department of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Cape Town, Cape Town 7925, South Africa.
Physical Activity, Sport and Recreation, Faculty Health Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jun 1;19(11):6788. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19116788.
Both the Movement Assessment Battery for Children second edition (M-ABC-2) and Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency second edition short form (BOT-2-SF) are frequently used in research and in the clinical practice to evaluate motor competence in children. Despite its widespread use in research, no studies have reported the results of case identification in African children. Comparing these two motor assessment tools for a different target group is important in order to select the most appropriate clinical and research tool. Methods. A total of 444 children performed MABC-2, 165 children also performed the BOT-2-SF and subsamples were tested on specific subtests of the BOT-2 (Running and Agility, Balance, and Strength). Tests were administered to randomly selected children between 6 and 10 years of age. Results: 36% for the children scored at or below the 16th percentile of the MABC-2, while this was 43%, 27%, and 23% for the component score in Manual Dexterity, Aiming and Catching, and Balance, respectively. Of the children 16% scored at or below the 17th percentile of the BOT-2-SF total score, while this was 3%, 9% and 22% for the subtest scores Running and agility, Balance, and Strength, respectively. A moderate correlation (r = 0.44) was found between total scores of the two tests. No significant correlations were found between the dynamic MABC-2 item (Jumping/Hopping) standard scores and any of the 9 balance items of the BOT-2. Conclusion: Far more children scored in the clinical “at risk” range (<16th percentile) when tested with the MABC-2 than with the BOT-2-SF. Overall, these children seemed not to be limited in motor performance measured by the BOT-2-SF, Running and Agility, and Balance. South African children did show lower levels of strength and explosive power. Children from different cultures will need tests for the specific motor skills that are representative for optimal functioning in their own setting. Thus, adapting reference norms and cut-off values may not be the optimal solution.
运动评估电池儿童第二版（M-ABC-2）和布鲁因克斯-奥塞雷茨基运动技能测试第二版短格式（BOT-2-SF）都常用于研究和临床实践中，以评估儿童的运动能力。尽管它在研究中广泛使用，但没有研究报告过在非洲儿童中进行病例识别的结果。为了选择最合适的临床和研究工具，比较这两种针对不同目标群体的运动评估工具很重要。方法。共有 444 名儿童接受了 MABC-2 测试，其中 165 名儿童还接受了 BOT-2-SF 测试，部分儿童接受了 BOT-2 的特定子测试（跑步和敏捷性、平衡和力量）测试。测试对象是随机抽取的 6 至 10 岁儿童。结果：36%的儿童在 MABC-2 中得分低于或等于第 16 个百分位，而在手动灵巧、瞄准和接球以及平衡方面的得分分别为 43%、27%和 23%。在 BOT-2-SF 总分中，有 16%的儿童得分低于或等于第 17 个百分位，而在跑步和敏捷性、平衡和力量等子测试中，得分分别为 3%、9%和 22%。两个测试的总分之间存在中度相关性（r = 0.44）。在动态 MABC-2 项目（跳跃/跳跃）标准得分和 BOT-2 的任何 9 个平衡项目之间，没有发现显著的相关性。结论：当使用 MABC-2 进行测试时，有更多的儿童在临床“风险”范围内（<16 个百分位）得分。总的来说，这些儿童在 BOT-2-SF、跑步和敏捷性以及平衡方面的运动表现似乎没有受到限制。南非儿童的力量和爆发力水平较低。来自不同文化的儿童需要针对其自身环境中最佳功能的特定运动技能进行测试。因此，调整参考标准和截止值可能不是最佳解决方案。
