Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33825767›Full record

ArticleRevista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo2021

MOVEMENT ASSESSMENT BATTERY FOR CHILDREN-SECOND EDITION: THEORETICAL ADEQUACY OF A MOTOR ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT.

Patrik Felipe Nazario, Luciana Ferreira, Jorge Both, José Luiz Lopes Vieira

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Revista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Patrik Felipe NazarioUniversidade Estadual de Maringá, Maringá, PR, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0203-2685
Luciana FerreiraUniversidade do Estado do Paraná, Paranavaí, PR, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5808-2334
Jorge BothUniversidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, PR, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8238-5682
José Luiz Lopes VieiraUniversidad Católica del Maule, Talca, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0453-8185

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the adequacy of the theoretical model of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (MABC-2) instrument.

methods582 children, of both sexes, aged between 3 and 5 years and residents in the city of Maringá (state of Paraná, Southern Brazil) participated in the study. Data were collected from May/2014 to June/2015 and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

resultsThe evidence obtained from exploratory factor analysis indicated the presence of two factors, which was the option that best fitted the explanatory model. Hence, it was necessary to regroup the motor tasks of the dimensions "Aiming & catching" and "Balance" into only one dimension. It is noteworthy that the "Bicycle trail" motor task did not fit the model, as it presented a low and negative factor load in the analyzed dimensions. In the confirmatory factor analysis, adequate adjustment indices were observed for the tested model, which confirmed the non-classification of the "Bicycle trail" motor task in the original dimension.

conclusionsAfter removing the "Bicycle trail" motor task, the adjusted two-factor model seems to be the most appropriate to assess the motor performance of children participating in the study.

Indexed as

BrazilChild, PreschoolExercise TestFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMotor Skills DisordersPsychometricsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID33825767
PMCPMC8023975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.