ArticlePediatric exercise science2025
Using 2 Versions of the Test of Gross Motor Development to Classify and Screen Young Children's Motor Skills: A Comparison Study.
Article in Pediatric exercise science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Influence of Biological Age and Sex on Gross Motor Skill Development in Young Athletes: A Pilot Study.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Interrelationship of Preschoolers' Gross Motor Skills, Digital Game Addiction Tendency, and Parents' Parenting Styles.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to examine comparability between 2 editions of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-second and TGMD-third edition) on (1) how children's motor skills were categorized as average or below average, and (2) how children are screened for being at-risk for motor delay or with delayed motor skills.
methodsParticipants were 226 children (Mage = 53.4 mo, 125 boys). All children completed full TGMD-2 and TGMD-3. Children were classified as average or above (>25th percentile) or below average (≤25th percentile) and, when applicable, as developmental delay (≤5th percentile) or at-risk for developmental delay (6-25th percentile). We compared children's classifications across TGMD editions using percent agreement and chi-squared tests.
resultsThe TGMD-2 and TGMD-3 had moderate agreement when categorizing children as below average (72.2% for total skills, 76.0% for locomotor skills, and 73% for ball skills). The TGMD-3 was significantly more likely to categorize children's motor skill performance as average or above (all P < .01).
conclusionTGMD-2 and TGMD-3 similarly screen children who demonstrate below average skills (≤25th percentile), but not for specific skill level classifications, including above average, at-risk for delays, and delayed.
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.