IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v6y2016i1p2158244016633273.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Motor Competence Across the Life Span

Author

Listed:
  • Hermundur Sigmundsson
  • HÃ¥vard LorÃ¥s
  • Monika Haga

Abstract

In this article, the psychometric properties of a new test battery aimed at quantifying motor competence across the life span are explored. The battery was designed to be quantitative, simple to administer, applicable for large-group testing, and reliably to monitor life span motor development. A total of 638 participants between 5 and 83 years of age completed assessment of four different motor tasks (two fine and two gross motor tasks), enabling us to investigate its feasibility, internal consistency, construct validity, and test–retest reliability. Feasibility : Overall pattern of results suggest that the test battery for motor competence presented here is applicable for the age-span studied (5-83). Important consideration in this regard is that the same tasks are applied for all ages. A u -shaped curve between age and total test score indicate the adequate sensitivity of the test battery for the age range examined. Internal consistency : All individual test item scores correlated positively with the total test score with correlations ranging from .48 to .64. Correlations between scores on individual test items were moderate to high (.31-.69). The Cronbach’s alpha value for the standardized items was .79. Construct validity : Pearson correlation coefficient between total score Test of Motor Competence (TMC) and Movement Assessment Battery for Children (MABC) were .47 for 7- to 8-years-old children ( n = 70) and .45 for 15- to 16-years-old ( n = 101). Test-retest reliability : Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between test and retest scores ranged from .75 to .94, and test–retest coefficient for the total score was .87.

Suggested Citation

  • Hermundur Sigmundsson & HÃ¥vard LorÃ¥s & Monika Haga, 2016. "Assessment of Motor Competence Across the Life Span," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(1), pages 21582440166, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:6:y:2016:i:1:p:2158244016633273
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244016633273
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244016633273
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244016633273?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Lövdén & Sabine Schaefer & Anna E. Pohlmeyer & Ulman Lindenberger, 2008. "Walking Variability and Working-Memory Load in Aging: A Dual-Process Account Relating Cognitive Control to Motor Control Performance," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 63(3), pages 121-128.
    2. Klaas Sijtsma, 2009. "On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach’s Alpha," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 107-120, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiaochuan Song, 2022. "Investigating Employees’ Responses to Abusive Supervision," Merits, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Carmen León-Mantero & José Carlos Casas-Rosal & Alexander Maz-Machado & Miguel E Villarraga Rico, 2020. "Analysis of attitudinal components towards statistics among students from different academic degrees," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, January.
    3. Brian K Miller & Kay M Nicols & Silvia Clark & Alison Daniels & Whitney Grant, 2018. "Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha for scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Adam Pawlewicz & Wojciech Gotkiewicz & Katarzyna Brodzińska & Katarzyna Pawlewicz & Bartosz Mickiewicz & Paweł Kluczek, 2022. "Organic Farming as an Alternative Maintenance Strategy in the Opinion of Farmers from Natura 2000 Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-22, March.
    5. Michael Hennessy & Amy Bleakley & Martin Fishbein, 2012. "Measurement Models for Reasoned Action Theory," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 640(1), pages 42-57, March.
    6. Hao Huang, 2022. "Moderating Effects of Racial Segregation on the Associations of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Walkability in Chicago Metropolitan Area," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-14, October.
    7. Rauter, Romana & Globocnik, Dietfried & Baumgartner, Rupert J., 2023. "The role of organizational controls to advance sustainability innovation performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    8. Mercy Gloria Ashepet & Liesbet Vranken & Caroline Michellier & Olivier Dewitte & Rodgers Mutyebere & Clovis Kabaseke & Ronald Twongyirwe & Violet Kanyiginya & Grace Kagoro-Rugunda & Tine Huyse & Liesb, 2024. "Assessing scale reliability in citizen science motivational research: lessons learned from two case studies in Uganda," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, December.
    9. Kelvin K. F. Law & Lillian F. Mills, 2019. "Financial Gatekeepers and Investor Protection: Evidence from Criminal Background Checks," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 491-543, May.
    10. Bastiaan Bruinsma, 2020. "A comparison of measures to validate scales in voting advice applications," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 1299-1316, August.
    11. Wen Jiao & Peter Johannes Schulz & Angela Chang, 2024. "Addressing the role of eHealth literacy in shaping popular attitudes towards post-COVID-19 vaccination among Chinese adults," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    12. Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp & Alberto Maydeu-Olivares, 2023. "Unrestricted factor analysis: A powerful alternative to confirmatory factor analysis," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 86-113, January.
    13. King, Wesley M. & Hughto, Jaclyn M.W. & Operario, Don, 2020. "Transgender stigma: A critical scoping review of definitions, domains, and measures used in empirical research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).
    14. Guido Alessandri & Michele Vecchione & Brent Donnellan & John Tisak, 2013. "An Application of the LC-LSTM Framework to the Self-esteem Instability Case," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 769-792, October.
    15. Foltean, Florin Sabin & Trif, Simona Mihaela & Tuleu, Daniela Liliana, 2019. "Customer relationship management capabilities and social media technology use: Consequences on firm performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 563-575.
    16. Érika Martins Silva Ramos & Cecilia Jakobsson Bergstad, 2021. "The Psychology of Sharing: Multigroup Analysis among Users and Non-Users of Carsharing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    17. István Tóth-Király & Beáta Bőthe & Gábor Orosz & Adrien Rigó, 2019. "A New Look on the Representation and Criterion Validity of Need Fulfillment: Application of the Bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling Framework," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 1609-1626, June.
    18. Ibrahim N. Khatatbeh & Hashem Alshurafat & Mohannad Obeid Al Shbail & Fouad Jamaani, 2023. "Factors Affecting Employees Use and Acceptance of Remote Working During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence From the Jordanian Insurance Sector," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(2), pages 21582440231, June.
    19. Dorothy Watson & Bertrand Maitre, 2015. "Is Fuel Poverty in Ireland a Distinct Type of Deprivation?," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 46(2), pages 267-291.
    20. Li, Zhenhua & Gao, Xuan, 2021. "Makers’ relationship network, knowledge acquisition and innovation performance: An empirical analysis from China," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:6:y:2016:i:1:p:2158244016633273. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.