Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Test of Gross Motor Development—Third Edition

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Kipling Webster ◽  
Dale A. Ulrich

With recent revisions, the evaluation of the reliability and validity of the Test of Gross Motor Development—3rd edition (TGMD-3) is necessary. The TGMD-3 was administered to 807 children (M age = 6.33 ± 2.09 years; 52.5% male). Reliability assessments found that correlations with age were moderate to large; ball skills had a higher correlation (r = .47) compared with locomotor skills (r = .39). Internal consistency was very high in each age group and remained excellent for all racial/ethnic groups and both sexes. Test-retest reliability had high ICC agreements for the locomotor (ICC = 0.97), ball skills (ICC = 0.95), and total TGMD-3 (ICC = 0.97). For validity measures, the TGMD-3 had above acceptable item difficulty (range = 0.43–0.91) and item discrimination values (range = 0.34–0.67). EFA supported a one-factor structure of gross motor skill competence for the TGMD-3 with 73.82% variance explained. CFA supported the one-factor model (χ2(65) = 327.61, p < .001, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .10), showing acceptable construct validity for the TGMD-3. Preliminary results show the TGMD-3 exhibits high levels of validity and reliability, providing confidence for the usage and collection of new norms.

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isaac Estevan ◽  
Javier Molina-García ◽  
Ana Queralt ◽  
Octavio Álvarez ◽  
Isabel Castillo ◽  
...  

The Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) is a process-oriented scale that provides qualitative information on children’s motor competence. The aim of the current study was to analyze the psychometric properties by examining the internal consistency and construct validity of the Spanish version of the TGMD-3. A sample of 178 typically developing children (47.5% girls) between the ages 3 and 11 years participated in this study. Reliability and the within-network psychometric properties of TGMD-3 were examined by using internal consistency and confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability indexes were excellent (> 0.89). A two-factor structure model was hypothesized and an alternative unifactorial model was also tested. Adequate fit indexes in both a two-factor model [ball skills seven items and locomotor skills six items (χ2 (64) = 139.200, p < .010, RMSEA = 0.073, SRMR = 0.050, NNFI = 0.964, CFI = 0.970)] and a one-factor model [(χ2 (65) = 157.666, p < .010, RMSEA = 0.084, SRMR = 0.055, NNFI = 0.956, CFI = 0.963)] were found. The Spanish version of the TGMD-3 is thus suitable for studying children’s actual motor competence level in terms of locomotor and ball skills and also in terms of fundamental movement skills.


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadia C. Valentini ◽  
Larissa W. Zanella ◽  
E. Kipling Webster

The Test of Gross Motor Development is used to identify children’s level of motor proficiency, specifically to detect motor delays. This study aimed to translate the TGMD-3 items and assess reliability and content and construct validity for the TGMD-3 in Brazil. A cross-cultural translation was used to generate a Brazilian Portuguese version of the TGMD-3. The validation process involved 33 professionals and 597 Brazilian children (ages 3–10) from the five main geographic regions of Brazil. The results confirmed language clarity and pertinence, as well as face validity of the TGMD-3. High intrarater (.60 to .90) and interrater (.85 to .99) reliability was evident, and test-retest temporal stability was confirmed (locomotor .93; ball skills .81). Adequate internal consistency was present for the skills-to-test and subtests correlations (TGMD-3-BR: α .74; locomotor skills: α .63; ball skills: α .76) and performance-criteria-to-test and -subtest correlations (TGMD-3: α .93; locomotor skills: .90; ball skills: .88). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the construct validity of a two-factor model (RMSEA = .04, 90% confidence interval: .03 to .05; CFI = .94; NFI = .91; TLI = .92; GFI = .94; AGFI = .92). The TGMD-3 is a valid and reliable instrument for Brazilian children.


Author(s):  
Aida Carballo-Fazanes ◽  
Ezequiel Rey ◽  
Nadia C. Valentini ◽  
José E. Rodríguez-Fernández ◽  
Cristina Varela-Casal ◽  
...  

The Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) is one of the most common tools for assessing the fundamental movement skills (FMS) in children between 3 and 10 years. This study aimed to examine the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of the TGMD—3rd Edition (TGMD-3) between expert and novice raters using live and video assessment. Five raters [2 experts and 3 novices (one of them BSc in Physical Education and Sport Science)] assessed and scored the performance of the TGMD-3 of 25 healthy children [Female: 60%; mean (standard deviation) age 9.16 (1.31)]. Schoolchildren were attending at one public elementary school during the academic year 2019–2020 from Santiago de Compostela (Spain). Raters scored each children performance through two viewing moods (live and slow-motion). The ICC (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient) was used to determine the agreement between raters. Our results showed moderate-to-excellent intra-rater reliability for overall score and locomotor and ball skills subscales; moderate-to-good inter-rater reliability for overall and ball skills; and poor-to-good for locomotor subscale. Higher intra-rater reliability was achieved by the expert raters and novice rater with physical education background compared to novice raters. However, the inter-rater reliability was more variable in all the raters regardless of their experience or background. No significant differences in reliability were found when comparing live and video assessments. For clinical practice, it would be recommended that raters reach an agreement before the assessment to avoid subjective interpretations that might distort the results.


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauli Olavi Rintala ◽  
Arja Kaarina Sääkslahti ◽  
Susanna Iivonen

This study examined the intrarater and interrater reliability of the Test of Gross Motor Development—3rd Edition (TGMD-3). Participants were 60 Finnish children aged between 3 and 9 years, divided into three separate samples of 20. Two samples of 20 were used to examine the intrarater reliability of two different assessors, and the third sample of 20 was used to establish interrater reliability. Children’s TGMD-3 performances were video-recorded and later assessed using an intraclass correlation coefficient, a kappa statistic, and a percent agreement calculation. The intrarater reliability of the locomotor subtest, ball skills subtest, and gross motor total score ranged from 0.69 to 0.77, and percent agreement ranged from 87 to 91%. The interrater reliability of the locomotor subtest, ball skills subtest, and gross motor total score ranged from 0.56 to 0.64. Percent agreement of 83% was observed for locomotor skills, ball skills, and total skills, respectively. Hop, horizontal jump, and two-hand strike assessments showed the most difference between the assessors. These results show acceptable reliability for the TGMD-3 to analyze children’s gross motor skills.


Author(s):  
Sedigheh Salami ◽  
Paulo Felipe Ribeiro Bandeira ◽  
Cristiano Mauro Assis Gomes ◽  
Parvaneh Shamsipour Dehkordi

Aim: To examine the latent structure of the Test of Gross Motor Development—Third Edition (TGMD-3) with a bifactor modeling approach. In addition, the study examines the dimensionality and model-based reliability of general and specific contributions of the test’s subscales and measurement invariance of the TGMD-3. Methods: A convenience sample of (N = 496; Mage = 7.23 ± 2.03 years; 53.8% female) typically developed children participated in this study. Three alternative measurement models were tested: (a) a unidimensional model, (b) a correlated two-factor model, and (c) a bifactor model. Results: The totality of results, including item loadings, goodness-of-fit indexes, and reliability estimates, all supported the bifactor model and strong evidence of a general factor, namely gross motor competence. Additionally, the reliability of subscale scores was poor, and it is thus contended that scoring, reporting, and interpreting of the subscales scores are probably not justifiable. Conclusions: This study shows the advantages of using bifactor approach to examine the TGMD-3 factor structure and suggests that the two traditionally hypothesized factors are better understood as “grouping” factors rather than as representative of latent constructs. In addition, our findings demonstrate that the bifactor model appears invariant for sex.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie C. Field ◽  
Christina B. Esposito Bosma ◽  
Viviene A. Temple

When a test is revised, it is important that test users are made aware of the comparability of scores of the new and the original test. We examined how scores on the Test of Gross Motor Development–Second Edition (TGMD-2) and Test of Gross Motor Development–Third Edition (TGMD-3) compared among children in middle childhood. Participants were 270 children recruited in grade 3 (54% female; Mage = 8 years 6 months) and followed through grade 5. Participants completed the skills of both tests. Subtest scores were converted into percent of maximum possible (POMP) scores to facilitate comparison. Although similar, uniformly the TGMD-3 POMP scores were slightly lower. Repeated measures analyses of variance revealed that locomotor subtest scores derived from both tests improved from grade 3 to grade 5, as did TGMD-3 assessed ball skills. However, there was no difference in TGMD-2 assessed object control skills over time. It appears that under-contribution by the underhand roll suppressed the trajectory of improvement of TGMD-2 assessed object control skills. This finding supports the exclusion of the roll from the TGMD-3. The consistent pattern of sex-based differences in TGMD-2 object control skill and TGMD-3 ball skills reinforces the need for male and female norm-reference data for ball skills.


2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 759-765 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadia C. Valentini ◽  
Mary E. Rudisill ◽  
Paulo Felipe R. Bandeira ◽  
Peter A. Hastie

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document