Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40133393›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Comparative analysis of three process-oriented assessment tools for identifying fundamental motor skills proficiency in children.

Miguel Lorenzo-Martínez, Ezequiel Rey, Cristian Abelairas-Gómez

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

3 authors.

Miguel Lorenzo-MartínezFaculty of Education, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Ezequiel ReyREMOSS Research Group, Universidade de Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain. zequirey@uvigo.es.
Cristian Abelairas-GómezFaculty of Education, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Child DevelopmentMotor SkillsChildFemaleHumansMaleChildhood.Gross motor skillsMeasurementMotor competenceProficiency

Identifiers

PMID40133393
PMCPMC11937372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.