SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Criterion Validity and Applicability of Motor Screening Instruments in Children Aged 5-6 Years: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Educator-Led Screening to Identify 4-Year-Old Children At-Risk of Motor Delay: A Mixed Methods Convergent Study.Child: care, health and development · 2026Article
- Clinical utility and psychometric properties of tools for early detection of developmental concerns and disability in young children: A scoping review.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2025Article
- Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Review
- The Targeted Motor Control Screening Tool Is Valid for 4-Year-Old Children.Physical therapy · 2024Observational
- Article
- Assessment Tools Measuring Fundamental Movement Skills of Primary School Children: A Narrative Review in Methodological Perspective.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The detection of motor developmental problems, especially developmental coordination disorder, at age 5-6 contributes to early interventions. Here, we summarize evidence on (1) criterion validity of screening instruments for motor developmental problems at age 5-6, and (2) their applicability. We systematically searched seven databases for studies assessing criterion validity of these screening instruments using the M-ABC as reference standard. We applied COSMIN criteria for systematic reviews of screening instruments to describe the correlation between the tests and the M-ABC. We extracted information on correlation coefficients or area under the receiver operating curve, sensitivity and specificity, and applicability in practice. We included eleven studies, assessing eight instruments: three performance-based tests (MAND, MOT 4-6, BFMT) and five questionnaires (DCD-Q, PQ, ASQ-3, MOQ-T-FI, M-ABC-2-C). The quality of seven studies was fair, one was good, and three were excellent. Seven studies reported low correlation coefficients or AUC (<0.70), four did not report these. Sensitivities ranged from 21-87% and specificities from 50-96%, with the MOT4-6 having the highest sensitivity and specificity. The DCD-Q, PQ, ASQ-3, MOQ-T-FI, and M-ABC-2-C scored highest on applicability. In conclusion, none of the instruments were sufficiently valid for motor screening at age 5-6. More research is needed on screening instruments of motor delay at age 5-6.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.