Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition

Last Updated

April 21, 2017

Purpose

The purpose of the BOT-2 is to provide a comprehensive overview of fine and gross motor skills in children and young adults within school age-range.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym BOT-2

Area of Assessment

Balance – Vestibular
Balance – Non-vestibular
Coordination
Dexterity
Functional Mobility
Gait
Strength
Upper Extremity Function
Vestibular

Assessment Type

Performance Measure

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$898.00

Diagnosis/Conditions

Pediatric + Adolescent Rehabilitation

Pediatric Disorders

The BOT-2 measures fine and gross motor development in 4 motor area composites with 8 subtests comprised of 53 items in the categories listed below:
Fine Manual Control
A) Fine Motor Precision (7 items)
B) Fine Motor Integration (8 items)
Manual Coordination
A) Manual Dexterity (5 items)
B) Upper-limb Coordination (7 items)
Body Coordination
A) Bilateral Coordination (7 items)
B) Balance (9 items)
Strength and Agility
A) Running Speed and Agility (5 items)
B) Strength (5 items)
Administration instructions can be found in the test kit's Administration Easel. The BOT-2 offers the following administration options:
A) Complete Form: the preferred administration option, as it has been found to be most reliable and comprehensive measure of motor proficiency
B) Short Form: for screening or program evaluation
C) Select Composites: administered based on individual needs
D) Select Subtests: administered based on individual needs
For each item, the raw score is determined according to the Administration Easel, which can include a number of points, a number of correct activities performed, or a number of seconds, amongst others. Raw scores are then converted to point scores using information provided on the Record Form.
For each subtest, total point scores are computed by adding up all the point scores. The norm tables provided in the manual are then used to convert the point scores into scale scores for each subset, and then to obtain standard scores and percentile ranks for motor-area composites and finally for the total motor composite.
Confidence intervals, age equivalents, and descriptive categories can also be extracted from the tables based on point, scale, and standard scores.
The Score Profile page of the Record Form allows for a graphic display of the scale scores, standard scores, and confidence intervals.
The Pairwise Comparisons page compares performance on motor areas composites and subtests to discover strengths and weaknesses.
Scores for the Complete Form and for the Short Form are reported as
total point scores, standard scores, or percentile ranks (Deitz, Kartin, & Kopp, 2007).
Minimum and maximum scores are as follows:
A) Total point scores: Complete Form: 0 to 320; Short Form: 0 to 88
B) Standard scores: 20 to 80
C) Percentile ranks: <1 to >99

Number of Items

Manual
Examinee booklet
Scoring transparency
Administration easel
Record forms
Blocks (15)
Cards (50)
Pegboard
Pegs (30)
Pennies (20)
Penny pad
Red pencil
Shuttle block
Target
Balance beam
Box
Knee pad
Scissors
String
Tennis balls
Stopwatch
Tape measure
Two Chairs
Table
Tape

15-60 minutes

The complete form takes 40-60 minutes to administer, with 10 additional minutes to prepare the testing area. The short form takes 15-20 minutes to administer, with an additional 5 minutes to set up the testing area.

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by University of Illinois at Chicago Master of Science in Occupational Therapy students Ruxandra Drasga, Andrea Gurga, and Anne McNamara.

Body Part

Lower Extremity

ICF Domain

Body Function
Activity

Measurement Domain

Motor

Professional Association Recommendation

There are currently no professional association recommendations.

Considerations

The administrator selects the most relevant and useful form, i.e., complete form, short form, composites, subtests. The short form overviews the client’s fine and gross motor functioning. The complete form is the most reliable and should be used to determine diagnoses or eligibility for services (Bruininks, 2005).
For children with a discrepancy between gross motor and fine motor abilities, overall score may be within the norm due to high gross or fine motor performance. However, this may disqualify the child from eligibility for services, even if the child should benefit from them (Deitz, Kartin, & Kopp, 2007).
Consider the ecological validity of the BOT-2 in different cultures. Vincon, Green, Blank, and Jenetzky (2016) studied the ecological validity of the BOT-2 with German children. Tasks that more closely resembled everyday tasks were better predictors of real world performance. Not all activities were relevant to German children.
BOT-2 ASSIST software simplifies the scoring process and eliminates human error.

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Individuals aged 4-21: (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005; n = 1,520; normative sample)

SEM = 2 (scale score); SEM=3 to 3.5 (composite standard score)

Intellectual Disabilities (ID): (Wuang & Su, 2009; n = 100; Mean Age = 82.9 months (24.9); Severity classification: Mild ID (IQ = [55, 70]), n = 64; Moderate to Severe ID (IQ = [25, 54]), n = 36; Taiwanese sample)

Subtests	Standard Error of Measurements (SEM)
Fine manual precision	0.42
Fine motor integration	0.39
Manual dexterity	0.51
Upper limb coordination	0.73
Bilateral coordination	0.65
Balance	0.49
Running speed and agility	0.49
Strength	0.63

Composites	Standard Error of Measurements (SEM)
Fine manual control	0.58
Manual coordination	0.66
Body coordination	0.80
Strength and agility	0.80
Total	1.79

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Intellectual Disabilities (ID): (Wuang & Su, 2009)

Subtests	Minimum Detectable Change (MDC)
Fine manual precision	0.98
Fine motor integration	0.67
Manual dexterity	1.19
Upper limb coordination	1.70
Bilateral coordination	1.52
Balance	1.14
Running speed and agility	1.14
Strength	1.47

Composites	Minimum Detectable Change (MDC)
Fine manual control	1.36
Manual coordination	1.54
Body coordination	1.87
Strength and agility	1.87
Total	4.18

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Intellectual Disabilities (ID): (Wuang & Su, 2009)

Subtests	Minimal Important Difference (MID)
Fine manual precision	0.72
Fine motor integration	0.88
Manual dexterity	1.47
Upper limb coordination	1.61
Bilateral coordination	1.11
Balance	0.57
Running speed and agility	0.59
Strength	1.73

Composites	Minimal Important Difference (MID)
Fine manual control	0.93
Manual coordination	2.55
Body coordination	1.65
Strength and agility	1.39
Total	6.53

Normative Data

Norm Sample by Age and Sex (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

Age	Sex				Total
	Female		Male
	N	%	N	%	N
4	100	50.0	100	50	200
5	100	50.0	100	50	200
6	55	50.0	55	50	110
7	57	51.8	53	48.2	110
8	55	50.0	55	50	110
9	55	50.0	55	50	110
10	61	50.8	59	49.2	120
11	53	48.2	57	51.8	110
12	58	52.7	52	47.3	110
13-14	61	50.8	59	49.2	120
15-16	55	50.0	55	50	110
17-21	55	50.0	55	50	110
Total	765	50.3	755	49.7	1520
US Population^a		48.9		51.1

^a US Population data obtained from Current Population Survey, March 2001 [machine readable data file] conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Norm Sample by Age and Race/Ethnicity (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

Hispanic

	Race/Ethnicity
	African American			White		Other^a			Total
Age	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N
4	31	15.5	41	20.5	116	58	12	6	200
5	27	13.5	39	19.5	123	61.5	11	5.5	200
6	19	17.3	22	20	61	55.5	8	7.3	110
7	16	14.5	24	21.8	63	57.3	7	6.4	110
8	17	15.5	18	16.4	67	60.9	8	7.3	110
9	17	15.5	19	17.3	69	62.7	5	4.5	110
10	20	16.7	19	15.8	73	60.8	8	6.7	120
11	18	16.4	16	14.5	66	60	10	9.1	110
12	16	14.5	23	20.9	65	59.1	6	5.5	110
13-14	19	15.8	21	17.5	72	60	8	6.7	120
15-16	16	14.5	18	16.4	68	61.8	8	7.3	110
17-21	14	12.7	19	17.3	72	65.5	5	4.5	110
Total	230	15.1	279	18.4	915	60.2	96	6.3	1520
US Population^b		15.7		17		61.9		5.4

^a Includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asian American, Pacific Islanders, and all other groups not classified as African American, Hispanic, or White

^b US Population data obtained from Current Population Survey, March 2001 [machine readable data file] conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Norm Sample by Age and Mother's Education Level (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

	Mother's Education^a
	High School Graduate or Less		1-3 Years of College		4-Year Degree or Higher		Total
Age	N	%	N	%	N	%	N
4	85	42.5	67	33.5	48	24.0	200
5	89	44.5	63	31.5	48	24.0	200
6	52	47.3	29	26.4	29	26.4	110
7	49	44.5	31	28.2	30	27.3	110
8	51	46.4	31	28.2	28	25.5	110
9	48	43.6	36	32.7	26	23.6	110
10	54	45.0	33	27.5	33	27.5	120
11	45	40.9	40	36.4	25	22.7	110
12	49	44.5	35	31.8	26	23.6	110
13-14	55	45.8	38	31.7	27	22.5	120
15-16	54	49.1	34	30.9	22	20.0	110
17-21	52	47.3	27	24.5	31	28.5	110
Total	683	44.9	464	30.5	373	24.5	1520
US Population^b		47.5		30.0		22.5

^a If mother's or female guardian's education level was not reported, father's or male guardian's education level was used.

^b US Population data obtained from Current Population Survey, March 2001 [machine readable data file] conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Norm Sample by Age and Geographic Region (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

	Geographic Location
	Northeast		North Central		South		West		Total
Age	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N
4	47	23.5	78	39.0	36	18.0	39	19.5	200
5	54	27.0	68	34.0	27	13.5	51	25.5	200
6	19	17.3	28	25.5	28	25.5	35	31.8	110
7	14	12.7	36	32.7	28	25.5	32	29.1	110
8	19	17.3	36	32.7	32	29.1	23	20.9	110
9	22	20.0	41	37.3	20	18.2	27	24.5	110
10	16	13.3	39	32.5	35	29.2	30	25.0	120
11	21	19.1	38	34.5	27	24.5	24	21.8	110
12	20	18.2	34	30.9	27	24.5	29	26.4	110
13-14	11	9.2	41	34.2	36	30.0	32	26.7	120
15-16	13	11.8	36	32.7	43	39.1	18	16.4	110
17-21	12	10.9	41	37.3	39	35.5	18	16.4	110
Total	268	17.6	516	33.9	378	24.9	358	23.6	1520
US Population^a		19.2		22.0		34.7		24.1

^a US Population data obtained from Current Population Survey, March 2001 [machine readable data file] conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Norm Sample by Mother's Education Level and Race / Ethnicity (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

Race / Ethnicity	Mother's Education^a
	High School Graduate or Less		1-3 Years of College		4-Year Degree or Higher		Total
	Sample	U.S. Population^b	Sample	U.S. Population^b	Sample	U.S. Population^b
	N	%	%	N	%	%	N	%	%	N
African American	99	43.0	53.5	73	31.7	33.7	58	25.2	12.8	230
Hispanic	211	75.6	74.5	45	16.1	18.8	23	8.2	6.6	279
White	335	36.6	39.7	328	35.8	32.3	252	27.5	27.9	915
Other^c	38	39.6	42.8	18	18.8	25.1	40	41.7	32.0	96
Total	683	44.9	47.5	464	30.5	30.0	373	24.5	22.5	1520

^a If mother's or female guardian's education level was not reported, father's or male guardian's education level was used.

^b US Population data obtained from Current Population Survey, March 2001 [machine readable data file] conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Norm Sample by Educational Classification or Diagnosis, Aged 6 to 18 (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

		Sample	U.S. School-Age Population^a
Educational Classification or Diagnosis	N	%	%
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder	49	3.2	4.0^b
Emotional/Behavioral Disturbance	16	1.1	0.9
Specific Learning Disability	54	3.6	5.4
Mental Retardation	21	1.4	1.0
Development Delay^c	9	0.6	0.4
Speech/Language Impairment	57	3.8	2.1
Other Impairment^d	17	1.1	1.5

^aData obtained from the Twenty-sixth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act; United States Department of Education, Office if Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2004. Retrieved from https://ideadata.org/tables26th/ar_aa7.htm

^b Data obtained from Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. (December 1999). Retrieved from http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/home.html

^c Ages 6-9

^d Includes hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, other health impairments, visual impairments, multiple disabilities, autism, and traumatic brain injury

Norm Sample by Age and Special Education Status (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

	Special Education Status
		Sample	U.S. School-Age Population ^a
Age	N	%	%
4	19	9.5	6.3
5	21	10.5	6.6
6	11	10.0	8.4
7	13	11.8	9.6
8	11	10.0	10.9
9	17	15.5	11.7
10	13	10.8	12.4
11	12	10.9	13.1
12	16	14.6	13.5
13-14	16	13.3	13
15-16	10	9.1	11.6
17-18	9	13.4	7.1
Total	168	11.4	10.4

^a Data obtained from the Twenty-sixth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act; United States Department of Education, Office if Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.ideadata.org/tables26th/ar_aa7.html

Test/Retest Reliability

Individuals aged 4 to 21: (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

Age Range	Test-Retest Reliability
Subtest Ages 4-7	Excellent (ICC=0.78)
Composite Ages 4-7	Excellent (ICC=0.83)
Subtest Ages 8-12	Excellent (ICC=0.76)
Composite Ages 8-12	Excellent (ICC=0.82)
Subtest Ages 13-21	Adequate (ICC=0.69)
Composite Ages 13-21	Excellent (ICC=0.77)

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang & Su, 2009)

Subtests	Test-Retest Reliability
Fine Manual Precision	Excellent (ICC=0.96)
Fine Motor Integration	Excellent (ICC=0.98)
Manual Dexterity	Excellent (ICC=0.92)
Upper Limb Coordination	Excellent (ICC=0.88)
Bilateral Coordination	Excellent (ICC=0.96)
Balance	Excellent (ICC=0.99)
Running Speed and Agility	Excellent (ICC=0.97)
Strength	Excellent (ICC=0.96)

Composites	Test-Retest Reliability (ICC)
Fine Manual Control	Excellent (ICC=0.99)
Manual Coordination	Excellent (ICC=0.98)
Body Coordination	Excellent (ICC=0.99)
Strength and Agility	Excellent (ICC=0.99)
Total	Excellent (ICC=0.99)

Remote Australian Aboriginal Communities BOT-2 Short Form: (Lucas et al. 2013; n = 30; age = [7, 9])

Adequate for raw score (ICC = 0.62)
Adequate for standard score (ICC = 0.73)
Adequate for percentile rank (ICC = 0.71)

Subtest	Subtest item	Test-retest ICC
Fine Motor Precision	Drawing lines through paths - crooked	Poor (ICC = 0.13)
	Folding paper	Excellent (ICC = 0.76)
Fine Motor Integration	Copying a square	Poor (ICC = 0.00)
	Copying a star	Poor (ICC = 0.25)
Manual Dexterity	Transferring pennies	Adequate (ICC = 0.48)
Bilateral Coordination	Jumping in place - same sides synchronized	Poor (ICC=-0.066)
	Tapping feet and fingers - same sides synchronized	Poor (ICC = -0.032)
Balance	Walking forward on a line	N/A
	Standing on one leg on a balance beam - eyes open	Poor (ICC = 0.17)
Running Speed and Agility	One-legged stationary hop	Poor (ICC = 0.25)
Upper Limb Coordination	Dropping and catching a ball- both hands	Poor (ICC = -0.041)
	Dribbling a ball- alternating hands	Poor (ICC = 0.023)
Strength	Knee push ups	Poor (ICC = 0.31)
	Sit ups	Poor (ICC = 0.26)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Individuals aged 4 to 21: (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

Excellent interrater reliability (ICC = 0.98)

Remote Australian Aboriginal Communities BOT-2 Short Form: (Lucas, et al. 2013; n = 30; age = [7, 9])

Excellent for raw score (ICC = 0.92), standard score (0.89), and percentile rank (0.88).

Subtest	Subtest item	Inter-rater ICC
Fine Motor Precision	Drawing lines through paths- crooked	Adequate (ICC=0.66)
	Folding paper	Excellent (ICC=0.92)
Fine Motor Integration	Copying a square	Excellent (ICC=0.89)
	Copying a star	Excellent (ICC=0.80)
Manual Dexterity	Transferring pennies	Excellent (ICC=1.00)
Bilateral Coordination	Jumping in place - same sides synchronized	Poor (ICC=0.34)
	Tapping feet and fingers- same sides synchronized	N/A
Balance	Walking forward on a line	N/A
	Standing on one leg on a balance beam - eyes open	Adequate (ICC=0.54)
Running Speed and Agility	One-legged stationary hop	Adequate (ICC=0.49)
Upper-limb coordination	Dropping and catching a ball- both hands	Excellent (ICC=1.00)
	Dribbling a ball- alternating hands	Excellent (ICC=0.85)
Strength	Knee push ups	Excellent (ICC=0.87)
	Sit ups	Excellent (ICC=0.86)

Internal Consistency

Individuals aged 4 to 21: (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

Age Range	Internal Consistency (α)
Ages 4-7	Excellent (α = 0.82)
Ages 8-11	Excellent (α = 0.83)
Ages 12-21	Excellent (α = 0.86)

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang & Su, 2009)

Subtests	Internal Consistency (α)
Fine Manual Precision	Excellent (α = 0.81)
Fine Motor Integration	Excellent (α = 0.83)
Manual Dexterity	Excellent (α = 0.83)
Upper Limb Coordination	Excellent (α = 0.87)
Bilateral Coordination	Excellent (α = 0.87)
Balance	Excellent (α = 0.85)
Running Speed and Agility	Excellent (α = 0.87)
Strength	Excellent (α = 0.85)

Composites	Internal Consistency (α)
Fine Manual Control	Excellent (α = 0.88)
Manual Coordination	Excellent (α = 0.88)
Body Coordination	Excellent (α = 0.87)
Strength and Agility	Excellent (α = 0.88)
Total	Excellent (α = 0.92)

Construct Validity

Convergent Validity:

Typically Developing Children: (Lane & Brown, 2015; n = 50; age = [7, 16])

Excellent correlation between BOT-2 total motor composite and MABC-2 (Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2) total test score for children aged 11 to 16 (rho = 0.80, p < 0.01)
Poor correlation between BOT-2 fine motor components (fine manual control, manual coordination, and associated subscales) and MABC-2 fine motor components (manual dexterity and aiming & catching) for children aged 7 to 10

Spearman’s rho (ρ) correlations between the BOT-2 fine motor components and the MABC-2 fine motor components

	7-10 year olds		11-16 year olds
	MABC-2		MABC-2
Variable	Manual Dexterity Component	Aiming & Catching Component	Manual Dexterity Component	Aiming & Catching Component
BOT-2 Subscales
Fine Motor Precision	Poor (ρ = -0.09)	Poor (ρ = -0.15)	Excellent (ρ = 0.61**)	Poor (ρ = 0.13)
Fine Motor Integration	Poor (ρ = 0.3)	Poor (ρ = -0.13)	Poor (ρ = 0.03)	Poor (ρ = 0.06)
Manual Dexterity	Poor (ρ = 0.03)	Poor (ρ = -0.01)	Adequate (ρ = 0.59**)	Poor (ρ = 0.12)
Upper Limb Coordination	Poor (ρ = -0.05)	Poor (ρ = 0.17)	Poor (ρ = -0.06)	Excellent (ρ = 0.63**)
Composite scales
Fine Manual Control	Poor (ρ = 0.09)	Poor (ρ = -0.15)	Adequate (ρ = 0.34)	Poor (ρ = 0.09)
Manual Coordination	Poor (ρ = -0.02)	Poor (ρ = 0.13)	Adequate (ρ = 0.44*)	Adequate (ρ = 0.38)

Notes: *Significant at the 0.05 level; **Significant at the 0.01 level.

Spearman’s rho (ρ) correlations between the BOT-2 gross motor components and the MABC-2 gross motor components

	7-10 year olds		11-16 year olds
	MABC-2		MABC-2
Variable	Balance Component	Aiming & Catching Component	Balance Component	Aiming & Catching Component
BOT-2 Subscales
Bilateral Coordination	Poor (ρ = -0.1)	Poor (ρ = -0.08)	Poor (ρ = 0.15)	Poor (ρ = 0.26)
Balance	Poor (ρ = 0.11)	Adequate (ρ = 0.35)	Adequate (ρ = 0.31)	Poor (ρ = 0.01)
Running Speed & Agility	Poor (ρ = 0.14)	Poor (ρ = 0.14)	Adequate (ρ = 0.45*)	Poor (ρ = 0.25)
Strength	Adequate (ρ = 0.37)	Poor (ρ = -0.1)	Adequate (ρ = 0.51*)	Adequate (ρ = 0.44*)
BOT-2 Composite Scales
Body Coordination	Poor (ρ = 0.13)	Poor (ρ = 0.17)	Poor (ρ = 0.29)	Poor (ρ = 0.03)
Strength & Agility	Adequate (ρ = 0.32)	Poor (ρ = 0.17)	Adequate (ρ = 0.45*)	Adequate (ρ = 0.44*)

Notes: *Significant at the 0.05 level; **Significant at the 0.01 level.

Responsiveness

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang & Su, 2009)

Subtests	Effect Size (ES)
Fine Manual Precision	Large Change (ES = 0.78)
Fine Motor Integration	Moderate to Large Change (ES = 0.63)
Manual Dexterity	Moderate Change (ES = 0.48)
Upper Limb Coordination	Moderate to Large Change (ES = 0.69)
Bilateral Coordination	Large Change (ES = 0.84)
Balance	Moderate Change (ES = 0.23)
Running Speed and Agility	Moderate to Large Change (ES = 0.66)
Strength	Moderate to Large Change (ES = 0.70)

Composites	Effect Size (ES)
Fine Manual Control	Moderate to Large Change (ES = 0.65)
Manual Coordination	Moderate to Large Change (ES = 0.64)
Body Coordination	Moderate Change (ES = 0.45)
Strength and Agility	Large Change (ES = 0.76)
Total	Moderate to Large Change (ES = 0.67)

Subtests	Standardized Response Mean (SRM)
Fine Manual Precision	0.72
Fine Motor Integration	0.65
Manual Dexterity	0.76
Upper Limb Coordination	0.79
Bilateral Coordination	0.78
Balance	0.27
Running Speed and Agility	0.54
Strength	0.65

Composites	Standardized Response Mean (SRM)
Fine Manual Control	0.56
Manual Coordination	0.73
Body Coordination	0.31
Strength and Agility	0.63
Total	0.54

Bibliography

Bruininks, B. D. (2005). Using the BOT-2 to identify and support students with fine and gross motor difficulties. BOT-2 webinar presented on September 21, 2015. Retreived from http://downloads.pearsonclinical. com/videos/BOT-2-092115/BOT-2-Webinar-Handout-092115.pdf

Bruininks, R., & Bruininks, B. (2005). Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson.

Deitz, J. C., Kartin, D., & Kopp, K. (2007). Review of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition (BOT-2). Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 27(4), 87-102. http://doi.org/10.1300/J006v27n04_06

Lane, H. & Brown, T. (2015). Convergent validity of two motor skills tests used to assess school-age children. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 22, 161-172. http://doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2014.969308

Lucas, B. R., Latimer, J., Doney, R., Ferreira, M., Adams, R., Hawkes, G., Elliot, E. J. (2013). The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency - Short Form is reliable in children living in remote Australian Aboriginal communities. BMC Pediatrics, 13(135). http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-13-135

Vincon, S., Green, D., Blank, R., & Jenetzky, E. (2016). Ecological validity of the German Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency - 2nd Edition. Human Movement Science. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2016.10.005

Wuang, Y. P. & Su, C. Y. (2009). Reliability and responsiveness of the Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-Second Edition in children with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 847–855. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2008.12.002

Last Updated

Purpose

Link to Instrument

Area of Assessment

Assessment Type

Administration Mode

Cost

Actual Cost

Diagnosis/Conditions

Number of Items

Required Training

Instrument Reviewers

Body Part

ICF Domain

Measurement Domain

Professional Association Recommendation

Considerations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Normative Data

Test/Retest Reliability

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Internal Consistency

Construct Validity

Responsiveness

Bibliography

Structured Clinical Interv...

Adverse Childhood Experien...

Movement Assessment Batter...