Validity and reliability of Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 Second Edition in children whit intellectual disability

There is a little study on the validity and reliability of motor tests in children with intellectual disabilities. Deficit in motor performance is common in children with intellectual disabilities (ID). It is important to use standardized test for evaluating the clinical and research based performance assessment in children. The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and concurrent validity of age band 2 of the movement assessment battery for children–second edition (MABC–2) in intellectual disability children.

The present study was descriptive and correlational. A total of 124 children whit intellectual disability (58 girls and 66 boys) 7–10 years old were selected as sample. The criteria for entering the study were aged between 7 to 10; having an IQ score between 50 to 70 that were available in their medical records at the school: without serious emotional and behavioral disorders and lack of any participation in physical and therapeutic programs. For minimizing data impairment children with autism spectrum, cerebral palsy, blindness and deafness, neurological disorders such as stroke, muscular dystrophy and epilepsy were excluded from the study. For measuring concurrent validity of MABC–2 test we used from BOT–2 test. In accordance with the instruction manual, the examiner, before testing each assignment, gave the opportunity to become familiar with the way the task that was performed, this opportunity varied for different assignments. Scoring was done according to the manual. To obtain rating of intellectual disability (IQ score), students dossier were used. To evaluate concurrent validity, 55 children in two consecutive days, evaluated with two tests. In addition, for reliability we used internal consistency with Cranach's alpha. Data were analyzed using SPSS software version 19 and significance level was 0.05.

The Cronbach's alpha value was 0.89, indicating a high correlation. In addition, the lowest and highest correlation between each item with total score was related to the task of throwing beanbag with 0.38 and one–board balance with 0.79. Spearman correlation coefficient showed the positive and significant correlation between manual dexterity component of the MABC–2 test with two composite areas of fine manual control (r=0.58, p=0.001) and manual coordination (r=0.41, p=0.002) of BOT–2 test. Also positive and significant correlation between manual dexterity component of the MABC–2 test with four subscales of fine motor precision (r=0.58, p=0.000), fine motor integration (r=0.55, p=0.001), manual dexterity (r=0.42, p=0.000) and upper–limb coordination (r=0.41, p=0.002) of BOT–2 test. However, there was no correlation between the aiming and catching component of the MABC–2 test with four composite areas of fine manual control (r=0.21, p=0.441), manual coordination (r=0.198, p=0.148), body coordination (r=0.198, p=0.148), strength and agility (r=0.126, p=0.359) of BOT–2 test. There was significant correlation between balance component of the MABC–2 test and running speed and agility (r=0.30, p=0.024) and balance (r=0.29, p=0.027) of BOT–2 test but no significant correlation between balance component of the MABC–2 test and bilateral coordination (r=0.03, p=0.984) and strength (r=0.024, p=0.863).

The MABC–2 test had a good validity and reliability for intellectual disability children, but some of its items need to be adjusted for these children. The high correlation between fine motor skills in two tests states that two MABC–2 and BOT–2 tests measuring better from fine motor skills compare to gross and balance motor skills in children 7 to 10 years old with intellectual disability.