ArticlePloS one2024
The validity and reliability of school-based fundamental movement skills screening to identify children with motor difficulties.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of cNORM and LMS methods for estimating reference percentile curves from biometric data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Physical Activity as a Key Factor in Elevated BMI Among Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Validation of FUNMOVES: A reliable tool for assessing motor skills in Spanish schoolchildren.PloS one · 2025Article
- Design of a Freely Accessible Web Application (Instrument for the Measurement of Balance in Primary Education, IMEP) for the Assessment of Static and Dynamic Balance in Children Aged 6-9 Years Based on Force Platforms.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2024Article
- Multistakeholder Perspectives on the Determinants of Family Fundamental Movement Skills Practice: A Qualitative Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Fundamental Stability Skills: Reliability Analysis Using theChildren (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimAssess whether school-based teacher-led screening is effective at identifying children with motor difficulties.
methodsTeachers tested 217 children aged between 5 and 11 years old, after a one hour training session, using a freely available tool (FUNMOVES). Four classes (n = 91) were scored by both researchers and teachers to evaluate inter-rater reliability. Researchers assessed 22 children using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (MABC-2; considered to be the 'gold standard' in Europe for use as part of the diagnostic process for Developmental Coordination Disorder) to assess concurrent and predictive validity.
resultsInter-rater reliability for all individual activities within FUNMOVES ranged from 0.85-0.97 (unweighted Kappa; with 95%CI ranging from 0.77-1). For total score this was lower (κ = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.68-0.84), however when incorporating linear weighting, this improved (κ = 0.94, 95%CI = 0.89-0.99). When evaluating FUNMOVES total score against the MABC-2 total score, the specificity (1, 95%CI = 0.63-1) and positive predictive value (1; 95%CI = 0.68-1) of FUNMOVES were high, whereas sensitivity (0.57, 95%CI = 0.29-0.82) and negative predictive values (0.57, 95%CI = 0.42-0.71) were moderate. Evaluating only MABC-2 subscales which are directly related to fundamental movement skills (Aiming & Catching, and Balance) improved these values to 0.89 (95%CI = 0.52-1) and 0.93 (95%CI = 0.67-0.99) respectively.
interpretationTeacher-led screening of fundamental movement skills (via FUNMOVES) is an effective method of identifying children with motor difficulties. Such universal screening in schools has the potential to identify movement difficulties and enable earlier intervention than the current norm.
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.