| Summary: | 碩士 === 長庚大學 === 早期療育研究所 === 103 === Background: The early motor development in children will influence their motor development in the later life. A valid motor assessment scale is important to understand the motor development for children. However, the foreign motor scale widely used in Taiwan lacked of norm in Taiwan children. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a valid and reliable motor scales, including Developmental Motor Assessment Scale for Preschool Children (DMASPC) and Developmental Motor Screening Scale for Preschool Children (DMSSPC).
Methods: This study collected normal-developed preschool children (0-6 years) from sample of "Early Child Development Research Database" project, and Kindergartens of new Taipei City and Taoyuan County, and pediatric outpatient clinic. . This study included 2 parts. Part I included the development of DMASPC and DMSSPC. The DMASPC and DMSSPC were developed based on literature review, the commonly used assessment tools, expert meeting, caregivers feedback and Rasch analysis. One hundred and seventy-seven children received DMASPC assessment and 54 children received the same test one week later. One hundred and fifty caregivers completed DMSSPC and 73 caregivers completed the same questionnaire one week later. Of these children, 24 children underwent received PDMS-2 assessment for validity.
Part II was to establish the reliability and validity for DMASPC and DMSSPC. A total of 352 children received DMASPC. Of these children, 264 children underwent received PDMS-2 assessment for validity and 10 children were selected for inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. A total of 752 caregivers completed DMSSPC. Of these children, 267 children underwent received PDMS-2 assessment for validity and 69 caregivers were selected for test-retest reliability.
The SPSS software was used to analyze the reliability and validity. The internal consistency and reliability were measured by Cronbach's α and intraclass correlation (ICC), respectively. The expert validity was measured by overall scale of the validity index (Scale-level CVI). The criterion-related validity between scale (DMASPC and DMSSPC) and PDMS-2 was measured by Pearson correlation. The ConQuest software was used to perform discrimination and Rasch analysis, including difficulty estimates and mean square error (MNSQ).
Result: Part I: After the above procedures, the DMASPC included fine motor (FM) and gross motor (GM) subscales. The FM subscales consisted 3 domains: grasp (9 items), hand manipulation (12 items) and visual motor integration (24 items). The GM subscales consisted of 3 domains: stationary (8 items), locomotion (16 items) and body coordination (16 items). The S-CVI values of DMASPC were 0.822－0.837 for FM subscales, and 0.950－0.903 for gross motor subscales. The DMSSPC included fine motor (FM) and gross motor (GM) subscales. The FM subscales consisted 3 domains: grasp (12 items), hand manipulation (25 items) and visual motor integration (15 items). The GM subscales consisted of 3 domains: stationary (6 items), locomotion (15 items) and body coordination (14 items. The S-CVI values of DMASPC were 0.918－0.981 for FM subscales, and 0.878－0.950 for gross motor subscales .
Part II: For DMASPC, the internal consistency (Cronbach α values) was 0.827－0.985. The ICC values for inter-rater and intrarater reliabilities were 0.97－0.99 (p<0.001) and 0.926－0.990 (p<0.001), respectively. The criterion validity between DMASPC and all domains of PDMS-2 was high (r=0.868－0.960, p<0.01) except the stationary domain (r=0.711, p<0.05). The discrimination of FM and GM were 0.38－0.92 and 0.18 －0.92, respectively. The difficulty estimate of FM and GM were -6.71－-7.32 and 4.62 － 5.74. The MNSQ of FM and GM were 0.51－1.54 and 0.47－1.87
For DMSSPC, the internal consistency (Cronbach α values) was 0.789－0.989. The ICC values for test-retest reliabilities were 0.800－0.907 (p<0.001) respectively. The criterion validity between DMASPC and all domains of PDMS-2 was fair to excellent (r=0.704－0.947, p<0.01). The discrimination of FM and GM were 0.22－0.90 and 0.11－0.88, respectively. The difficulty estimate of FM and GM were -7.32－5.95 and -10.07－5.83. The MNSQ of FM and GM were 0.48－2.05 and 0.47－1.60.
Conclusion: Both DMASPC and DMSSPC developed in this study have excellent reliability and fair to excellent validity. However, few items have misfits by Rasch analysis and this study is limited by uneven age distribution. Future studies will increase sample size with even age distribution to validate both scales.
|
|---|
