ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of three process-oriented assessment tools for identifying fundamental motor skills proficiency in children.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Building From a Stable Foundation? Understanding Stability Skill Proficiency in British Children in the First Year of School.Child: care, health and development · 2026Article
- Prevalence of fundamental movement skill mastery in school-aged children and adolescents: a systematic review.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current study aimed to examine discrepancies between three different process-oriented tools in assessing the same fundamental movement skills in primary school children. A total of 120 children aged 6-12 years (mean age: 9.3 ± 1.9 years) were evaluated on 6 skills (run, leap, kick, over-hand throw, catch, and two-hand strike) common to the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) 2nd or 3rd edition, Get Skilled Get Active (GSGA), and Fundamental Motor Skills Assessment (FMSA). Differences were analysed using standardised scores (raw score divided by the number of performance criteria of each skill) and the prevalence of advanced skills (i.e., correct execution of all or all but one performance criteria). The main results showed large correlations between tools, but significant differences (p < 0.05) in standardised scores of each assessment tool across all skills. The TGMD classified a significantly higher percentage of children as having advanced skills in running, leaping, kicking, and catching compared to the GSGA and FMSA. These findings suggest that tools with fewer performance criteria for each skill may be less rigorous than more detailed assessments such as the GSGA and FMSA, emphasising the importance of standardising scoring procedures and developing clearer, universally accepted criteria across FMS assessments.
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.