Miller Function & Participation Scales

Typically Developing Children: (Miller, 2006; n = 414 (for norm-referenced scores; for criterion-referenced scores, see below); age = [2.6 to 7.11])

The average SEMS were calculated by averaging the sum of the squared SEMs for each age group and obtaining the square root of the result)

Average SEM for Norm-Referenced Scores

• Average SEM for Visual Motor (n = 414): 1.22
• Average SEM for Fine Motor (n = 414): 0.98
• Average SEM for Gross Motor (n = 414): 0.87

Average SEM for Criterion-Referenced Scores

• Average SEM for Home Observations (n = 325): 5.23
• Average SEM for Classroom Observations (n = 183): 4.72
• Average SEM for Test Observations (n = 360): 2.13

Children Aged 2.6 to 7.11: (Miller, 2006)

• If the cut-score was 1 standard deviation below the mean for the Visual Motor score, 89% of those with a visual motor delay were correctly identified as such by M-FUN, and 89% of those without visual motor delays were correctly identified as such (sensitivity = 0.89; specificity = 0.89)
• If the cut-score was 1.5 standard deviations below the mean for the Visual Motor score, 92% of those with a visual motor delay were correctly identified as such by M-FUN, and 77% of those without visual motor delays were correctly identified as such (sensitivity = 0.72; specificity = 0.93)
• If the cut-score was 2 standard deviations below the mean for the Visual Motor score, 100% of those with a visual motor delay were correctly identified as such by M-FUN, and 66% of those without visual motor delays were correctly identified as such (sensitivity = 0.49; specificity = 1.00)
• If the cut-score was 1 standard deviation below the mean for the Fine Motor score, 78% of those with a fine motor delay were correctly identified as such by M-FUN, and 72% of those without fine motor delays were correctly identified as such (sensitivity = 0.69; specificity = 0.80)
• If the cut-score was 1.5 standard deviations below the mean for the Fine Motor score, 88% of those with a fine motor delay were correctly identified as such by M-FUN, and 69% of those without fine motor delays were correctly identified as such (sensitivity = 0.58; specificity = 0.92)
• If the cut-score was 2 standard deviations below the mean for the Fine Motor score, 96% of those with a fine motor delay were correctly identified as such by M-FUN, and 62% of those without fine motor delays were correctly identified as such (sensitivity = 0.38; specificity = 0.98)
• If the cut-score was 1 standard deviation below the mean for the Gross Motor score, 83% of those with a gross motor delay were correctly identified as such by M-FUN, and 86% of those without gross motor delays were correctly identified as such (sensitivity = 0.87; specificity = 0.82)
• If the cut-score was 1.5 standard deviations below the mean for the Gross Motor score, 88% of those with a gross motor delay were correctly identified as such by M-FUN, and 79% of those without gross motor delays were correctly identified as such (sensitivity = 0.77; specificity = 0.90)
• If the cut-score was 2 standard deviations below the mean for the Gross Motor score, 95% of those with a gross motor delay were correctly identified as such by M-FUN, and 71% of those without gross motor delays were correctly identified as such (sensitivity = 0.60; specificity = 0.97)

Typically Developing Children: (Miller, 2006; n = 28; age = [2.6, 7.11])

• Excellent test-retest reliability for Visual Motor Test (ICC = 0.77)
• Excellent test-retest reliability for Fine Motor Test (ICC = 0.82)
• Excellent test-retest reliability for Gross Motor Test (ICC = 0.77)

Children Ages 2.6 to 7.11 Years: (Miller, 2006; n = 29; age = [2.6, 7.11])

• Excellent interrater reliability for Visual Motor Test (ICC = 0.91)
• Excellent interrater reliability for Fine Motor Test (ICC = 0.93)
• Excellent interrater reliability for Gross Motor Test (ICC = 0.91)

Children Identified as Having a Motor Delay: (Miller, 2006)

• Excellent internal consistency for Visual Motor Test (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.92)
• Excellent internal consistency for Fine Motor Test (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.93)
• Excellent internal consistency for Gross Motor test (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.96)

Typically Developing Children: (Miller, 2006; n = 414; age = [0.6, 7.11])

• Excellent internal consistency for Visual Motor Test (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.85)
• Excellent internal consistency for Fine Motor Test (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.90)
• Excellent internal consistency for Gross Motor Test (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.92)
• Excellent internal consistency for Home Observations Checklist (Cronbach’s Alpha=.95)
• Excellent internal consistency for Classroom Observations Checklist (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.96)
• Excellent internal consistency for Test Observations Checklist (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.96)

Children Identified as Having a Motor Delay: (Miller, 2006)

• Excellent internal consistency for Visual Motor Test (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.92)
• Excellent internal consistency for Fine Motor Test (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.93)
• Excellent internal consistency for Gross Motor Test (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.96)

Concurrent Validity:

Children Aged 2.6 to 7.11 Years: (Miller, 2006; n = 15; mean age = 3.7)

• Excellent correlation between the M-FUN Fine Motor scaled scores and the Miller Assessment of Preschoolers (MAP) total score (r = 0.83)
• Excellent correlation between the M-FUN Visual Motor scaled scores and the MAP total score (r = 0.62)
• Adequate correlation between the M-FUN Gross Motor scaled scores and the MAP total score (r = 0.42)

Children Aged 4.6 to 6.6 Years: (Diemand & Case-Smith, 2013; n = 40; Age  = [4.6, 6.6]; 20 children were receiving occupational therapy services)

• Excellent correlation between the total scaled score for visual motor subscale of the Developmental Test of Visual Perception, Second Edition (DTVP-2) and the visual motor subscale of the M-FUN (r = 0.87)
• Excellent correlation between the raw scores for the DTVP-2 and the M-FUN (r = 0.835)
• Excellent, Adequate, and Poor correlation of M-FUN subtest raw scores and DTVP-2 subtest raw scores (see table below for breakdown of each subtest)

Subtest

Eye-Hand Coordination
(DTVP-2)

Copying
(DTVP-2)

Spatial

Relations
(DTVP-2)

Visual Motor

Speed
(DTVP-2)

Amazing Mazes (M-FUN)

Excellent
(r = 0.708)

Adequate
(r = 0.592)

Adequate
(r = 0.544)

Adequate
(r = 0.438)

Race Car
(M-FUN)

Adequate
(r = 0.464)

Adequate
(r = 0.574)

Adequate
(r = 0.448)

Excellent
(r = 0.643)

Hidden Forks
(M-FUN)

Adequate
(r = 0.545)

Adequate
(r = 0.524)

Adequate
(r = 0.443)

Adequate
(r = 0.418)

Find the Puppies
(M-FUN)

Adequate
(r = 0.535)

Adequate
(r = 0.468)

Adequate
(r = 0.463)

Poor
(r = 0.302)

Draw a Kid
(M-FUN)

Adequate
(r = 0.489

Excellent
(r = 0.690)

Excellent (r = 0.610)

Adequate
(r = 0.584)

Writing
(M-FUN)

Adequate
(r = 0.539)

Excellent
(r = 0.685)

Excellent (r = 0.659)

Excellent
(r = 0.638)

Go Fishing
(M-FUN)

Excellent
(r = 0.621)

Adequate
(r = 0.589)

Adequate
(r = 0.557)

Adequate
(r = 0.543)

Visual Motor Behavior
(M-FUN)

Excellent
(r = 0.762)

Adequate
(r = 0.572)

Adequate
(r = 0.566)

Adequate
(r = 0.422)

Children Aged 2.6 to 7.11 Years: (Rihtman & Parush, 2014; n = 267; mean age = 59.21 months; Israel sample)

• Excellent correlation between the raw score of the M-FUN (Hebrew Version) Visual Motor test and the raw score of the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, Fifth Edition Beery Visual-Motor Integration test (r = 0.83)
• Excellent correlation between the raw score of the M-FUN (Hebrew Version) Visual Motor test and the raw score of the Beery Visual Perception test (r = 0.62)
• Excellent correlation between the raw score of the M-FUN (Hebrew Version) Visual Motor test and the raw score of the Beery Motor Coordination test (r = 0.72)
• Adequate correlation between the raw score of the M-FUN (Hebrew Version) Fine Motor test and the raw score of the Beery Visual-Motor Integration test (r = 0.59)
• Adequate correlation between the raw score of the M-FUN (Hebrew Version) Fine Motor test and the raw score of the Beery Visual Perception test (r = 0.54)
• Adequate correlation between the raw score of the M-FUN (Hebrew Version) Fine Motor test and the raw score of the Beery Motor Coordination test (r = 0.50)
• Excellent correlation between the raw score of the M-FUN (Hebrew Version) Gross Motor test and the raw score of the Beery Visual Motor Integration test (r = 0.62)
• Adequate correlation between the raw score of the M-FUN (Hebrew Version) Gross Motor test and the raw score of the Beery Visual Perception test (r = 0.44)
• Adequate correlation between the raw score of the M-FUN (Hebrew Version) Gross Motor test and the raw score of the Beery Motor Coordination test (r = 0.43)

Convergent Validity:

Children Aged 2.6 to 7.11 Years: (Rihtman & Parush, 2014, n = 30; mean age = 59.21 months; Israel sample)

• Excellent construct validity between the Visual Motor Test raw scores and child’s age (r = 0.85)
• Excellent construct validity between the Fine Motor Test raw scores and child’s age (r = 0.66)
• Excellent construct validity between the Gross Motor Test raw scores and child’s age (r = 0.77)
• Poor construct validity between the Home Observation Checklist score and child’s age (r = 0.30)
• Poor construct validity between the Classroom Observation Checklist score and child’s age (r = 0.23)
• Poor construct validity between the Test Observation Checklist score and child’s age (r = 0.18)

M-FUN for Ages 2.6 to 3.11 Years

• Adequate construct validity for Visual Motor Test (r = 0.57)
• Adequate construct validity for Fine Motor Test (r = 0.40)
• Adequate construct validity Gross Motor Test (r = 0.52)

M-FUN for Ages 4.0 to 7.11 Years

• Excellent construct validity for Visual Motor Test (r = 0.79)
• Excellent construct validity for Fine Motor Test (r = 0.68)
• Excellent construct validity for Gross Motor Test (r = 0.78)

• M-FUN is based on the model from the ICF and AOTA's OT Practice Framework (World Health Organization, 2001; American Occupational Therapy Association, 2002; Miller, 2006).
• 6 focus groups were held in California, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania in 2003. Participants collaborated, indicating that M-FUN needed to be a measure of functional abilities rather than developmental milestones (Miller, 2006).
• Experts established the importance of combining subjective parent and teacher ratings with standardized measures (Miller, 2006).
• 5 experts evaluated blueprint for the test and initial draft of test items and experts were consulted to review the developmental skills that would be assessed in games (Miller, 2006).