Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35055607›Full record

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.

Nienke H van Dokkum, Sijmen A Reijneveld, Judith Th B W de Best, Marleen Hamoen, Sanne C M Te Wierike, Arend F Bos, Marlou L A de Kroon

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2024
    Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

7 authors.

Nienke H van DokkumDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Beatrix Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2706-0372
Sijmen A ReijneveldDepartment of Health Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1206-7523
Judith Th B W de BestDepartment of Public Health, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Wytemaweg 80, 3015CN Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marleen HamoenDepartment of Public Health, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Wytemaweg 80, 3015CN Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7444-4550
Sanne C M Te WierikeCenter for Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Arend F BosDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Beatrix Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Marlou L A de KroonDepartment of Health Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Motor Skills DisordersChildChild, PreschoolHumansMass ScreeningReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySurveys and Questionnairesage 5–6childrencriterion validitymotor developmental problemsscreening

Identifiers

PMID35055607
PMCPMC8775360

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.