1. INTRODUCTIONRESULTS PURPOSE METHODS CONCLUSION The Correlation between Parental Perception of Movement Difficulties and Scoring on a Motor Proficiency Assessment Ketaki Deo, BS; Danielle Henry, BS; & Dr. Priscila Caçola Developmental Motor Cognition Lab, Department of Kinesiology, The University of Texas at Arlington METHODS The purpose of this study was to evaluate how well parents can predict their children’s motor difficulties when compared to scores on the Bruininks-Oserestky Test of Motor Proficiency, 2 nd Edition. Children with movement difficulties face more challenges in activities of daily living, especially those involving fine motor control, manual coordination, and balance. Parental perception has been considered a reliable and valid source of information regarding their child’s current skill level despite their tendency to overestimate future skill levels (Wilson et al., 2000). The DCD-Q has been found to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess daily life motor performance in 4 to 12 year old children (Schoemaker, 2006). Motor screening questionnaires are developed to improve the detection and treatment of movement difficulties. Participants 8 children (6 males, 2 females) within the age range of 7 to 12 (8.62 ± 2.33) were screened with 2 standardized tests, MABC-2 and KBIT-2 to determine movement difficulties. Subjects were then assessed with the BOT-II while the parents filled out a questionnaire. Assessments Administration of all tasks averaged 1.5 to 2 hours. 1. Fine manual control: precise finger and hand movements Fine motor precision (7 items) Fine motor integration (8 items) 2. Manual coordination: speed, dexterity, and coordination of upper extremities Manual dexterity (5 items) Upper-limb coordination (7 items) 3. Body coordination: balance and coordination of both upper and lower extremities Bilateral coordination (7 items) Balance (9 items) All composites are combined resulting in a total motor composite (TMC) score providing a general measure of motor ability. The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, 2nd Edition (BOT-2): - A reliable and efficient measure of fine and gross motor skills for ages 4 to 21 (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005) consisting of 8 subtests categorized into 4 components. For our analysis comparing the DCD-Q and the BOT- II, we only used three of the subtests: fine manual control, manual coordination, and body coordination (excluding subtest 4:strength and agility subtest). These subtests more closely matched the three components measured by the DCD-Q. The Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, 2nd Edition (KBIT-2): - A reliable estimate of intelligence through verbal and nonverbal tasks for examinees aged 4 to 90. 1. Verbal: receptive vocabulary and range of general information 2. Nonverbal: understanding relationships between visual stimuli both meaningful & abstract Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCD-Q): - Aimed at detecting possible coordination difficulties based on parental perception of their child’s motor skills. It is composed of 15 questions divided into 3 categories: 1. Control during movement (6 questions) 2. Fine motor (4 questions) 3. General coordination (5 questions) Each individual category is totaled, and the sum of all provides a total score. We ran a Spearman Correlation test and found the correlation between Fine Manual Control on the BOT-II and the Fine Motor category on the DCD-Q was moderately high and approached significance (R = 0.679, p = 0.064). The correlation between the Body Coordination Subtest of the BOT-2 and the total score on the DCD-Q also approached significance (R = -0.515, p = 0.191). These were the only two variables that had a conclusive correlation. The lack of significance can be explained by our small sample size (n = 8). These results, however, do confirm the findings from another study examining the relationship between BOT-subtests and DCD-Q scores (Schoemaker, 2006). This study found slightly higher correlations between the BOT-subtests and the DCD-Q (R =.46 -.54 and R =.57 -.66). Parents may have a better perception of their child’s fine motor skills because handwriting is a major component of school work and difficulties are more apparent. These results indicate parents’ ability to perceive their child’s motor abilities is a good predictor of movement difficulty and can be used as a pre-screening instrument since it is less time consuming, less expensive, and more convenient than using lengthy standardized motor tests. Movement Control (DCD-Q) Fine Motor (DCD-Q) General Coordination (DCD-Q) Total DCD-Q Score Manual Coordination (BOT) R = 0.161, p= 0.704 R = -.217 p = 0.605 R = 0.181, p = 0.668 R = -.012 p = 0.977 Fine Manual Control (BOT R = -0.356 p = 0.387 R =.679 p =.064 R = -0.287 p = 0.490 R = -.390 p = 0.339 Body Coordination (BOT) R = -0.370, p = 0.366 R =.472 p = 0.237 R = -0.494 p = 0.213 R = -.515 p = 0.191 Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2 nd Edition (MABC - 2): - A standardized test examining motor competence of a child (Henderson, 2007). 1. Manual Dexterity (3 items) 2. Aiming and Catching (2 items) 3. Balance (3 items) All components are combined resulting in a total motor percentile ranking. This score is used to compare the subject to others in the same age group. A score below the 15 th percentile points to movement difficulties. Developmental Motor Cognition Lab