1. Qualitative Manual Assessment Of Motor Control (q Mac) Reviews
2. Motor Control Definition
3. Qualitative Manual Assessment Of Motor Control (q Mac) Free

Read this article to learn about the differences between quantitative and qualitative credit controls.

A pertinent question that can be conveniently raised is: are quantitative credit controls more important or qualitative?

Apr 24, 2016  Fine Motor Quotient (FMQ) is a composite of the results of two subtests that measure small muscle systems. They are Grasping (all ages) and Visual-Motor Integration (all ages) Total Motor Quotient (TMQ) is formed by a combination of results of the gross and fine motor subtests to determine the best overall estimate of motor abilities. This study investigated the effects of qualitative and quantitative knowledge of results (KR) on the acquisition of a motor skill. It was hypothesized that there would be differences in.

In theory as well as in practice, there is much to be said in favour of qualitative controls and against an indiscriminate use of quantitative methods. On the other hand, qualitative controls cannot alone cure an inflationary situation.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Quantitative controls aim at regulating the overall volume of bank credit, rather the particular made use of it. ‘Selective’ or ‘Qualitative’ controls may have an important direct impact on particular sectors of the economy. But their effectiveness is limited. A special control may restrain direct bank loans to finance stock market speculation, but it cannot prevent the use of other bank credit for this purpose.

Another big weakness of selective controls is that they directly restrict individual choice among alternatives. Special controls on housing credit, for example, mean that the government diverts consumers away from buying houses to other ways of spending money. General controls, by contrast, limit the total amount of money but they don’t try to influence what kind of spending the borrower does.

However, selective credit controls have own merits. For example, during inflation, quantitative controls are likely to pull the economy down to depression, if applied too severely. They are jerky in their operation. Fear of a shortage approach leads many observers to prefer selective or qualitative restraints to check inflationary loans. They argue that the problem is usually centered in some particular sector of the economy, and that to use general restraint is to risk killing off the whole boom in order to get at the offending sector.

The boom may be caused by excessive consumer spending on durables, or excessive credit-financed housing or rampant stock market speculation. All these factors may be running the boom so fast as to endanger the whole prosperity. But soft spots remain in other parts of the economy. In these circumstances, the right policy will be to adopt real estate credit control, controls on down payment sales of consumer durables and fixing margin requirements for stock market speculative credit.

If we restrict ourselves to quantitative methods, with the speculative mood in real estate and a spending spree on other consumer durables, it might take very high interest rates to damp real estate and other demands, and these would risk killing off the entire boom. Direct restrictions on these special sectors can nip the over-expansion there with little danger to the rest of the economy.

But as, we noted above, selective controls have their own weaknesses. Uneven enforcement is the greatest danger of such special controls. Selective credit controls are not a real substitute for general credit restraint, when in an economy-wide inflationary boom is the problem. However, they can play a useful, though modest, role for restraining particular kinds of credit extension. They are a good supplement to the quantitative controls.

Purpose

PDMS-2 is a revision of the original Peabody Developmental Motor Scales (PDMS) from 1983. PDMS-2 is composed of six subtests (Reflexes, Stationary, Locomotion, Object Manipulation, Grasping, Visual-Motor Integration) that measure interrelated motor abilities of children from birth through age 5 years of age. Each subtest is described below.

Diagnosis/Conditions

• Cerebral Palsy
• Pediatric + Adolescent Rehabilitation

• PDMS-2 is composed of six subtests, which include:
  1. Reflexes (8-item subtest that measures child’s ability to react to environmental events; only measured from birth through 11 months as reflexes are typically integrated by 12 months of age)
  2. Stationary (30-item subtest that measures child’s ability to control body within center of gravity and retain equilibrium)
  3. Locomotion (89-item subtest that measures child’s ability to move from one place to another through crawling, walking, running, hopping, and jumping forward)
  4. Object Manipulation (24-item subtest that measures child’s ability to manipulate balls through catching, throwing and kicking balls and is only measured in children 12 months of age and older)
  5. Grasping (26-item subtest that measures child’s ability to use his or her hands starting with holding an object and progressing through controlled use of the fingers of both hands)
  6. Visual-Motor Integration (72-item subtest that measures child’s ability to use his or her visual perceptual skills to perform complex eye-hand coordination tasks, such as reaching and grasping for an object to building with blocks and copying designs)
  
• Administration instructions give information about the:
  Position the child needs to be in for each item
  Stimulus (if needed) for presenting the item
  Procedure for test item
  Scoring criterion for the item
  Illustration of child performing the item as a reference
• Testing starts with an age-level entry for each section tested. Item-level scores range from 0-2, determined by ability to perform the assessed activity with a basal score needing to be obtained (having three 2s in a row) then, commencing until a ceiling is reached (three 0s in a row)
• Item scores are summed and results of subtests may be used to generate three global indexes of motor performance called composites
• Gross Motor Quotient (GMQ) is a composite of subtest results that measure large muscle systems. Three of four subtests form this composite score: Reflexes (birth to 11 months only); Stationary (all ages); Locomotion (all ages); Object Manipulation (12 months and older)
• Fine Motor Quotient (FMQ) is a composite of the results of two subtests that measure small muscle systems. They are Grasping (all ages) and Visual-Motor Integration (all ages)
• Total Motor Quotient (TMQ) is formed by a combination of results of the gross and fine motor subtests to determine the best overall estimate of motor abilities
• Test Manipulatives included in the kit:
  • One black shoelace
  • Six square beads
  • Twelve cubes
  • One bottle with screw-on cap
  • One large button strip
  • One pegboard
  • Three pegs
  • One formboard
  • Three forms
  • One lacing card
  • One measuring tape
  • One roll 2-inch wide masking tape
  • Blackline masters
  • Three shape cards
• Test manipulatives supplied by examiner:
  • Rattle
  • Soft plush toy
  • Small toy on string
  • Empty soft drink can
  • 8-inch ball
  • Tennis ball
  • Cup
  • Spoon
  • Washcloth
  • 10-15 sheets of paper (8 ½ x 11 inch)
  • Pencils, crayons and markers
  • Blunt scissors
  • Large pull toy (e.g., wagon)
  • Book with thick cover pages
  • Food pellets (e.g., cereal)
  • 4 to 5 feet of heavy string or rope
  • Stairs with 7-inch rise
  • Sturdy object (16 to 21 inches high)
  • Mat
  • Stopwatch

• Test kit
• Desk/table
• Two chairs
• Stopwatch
• Manual

60 minutes

45-60 minutes for entire PDMS-2
20-30 minutes for either Gross Motor (GM) or Fine Motor (FM) composites separately

Considerations

• When making important decisions about diagnosis and placement for children, clinician’s should rely primarily on the results of composites rather than subtests. (Folio & Fewell, 2000)
• Use of standard scores and percentiles to age equivalents when reporting results to parents and other professionals is preferred and the most reliable scores for the PDMS-2 are the quotients (Folio & Fewell, 2000)
• PDMS-2 provides qualitative and quantitative information about child’s motor development (Wuang et al, 2012)
• PDMS-FM-2 is not sensitive enough for identification of fine motor problems in Dutch children. PDMS-FM-2 may have more validity with Dutch children with Dutch norms
• Low agreement between PDMS-2 and M-ABC in identification of children with mild motor impairment might be related to how tests were standardized, PDMS-2 includes 10% of children with disabilities in the standardization sample
• Age equivalent scores between the PDMS-2 and EIDP were strongly correlated although the age equivalent scores were significantly higher on the EIDP (average of 3.8 months higher), estimating gross motor age that is 26% higher than that obtained by PDMS-2. Differences in age equivalent scores may affect a child’s eligibility for services in some states. Therefore, this study supports the use of norm-based tests when determining a percentage of delay relative to the norm (Maring & Elbaum, 2007)

Cerebral Palsy

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Cerebral Palsy (CP): (Wang et al, 2006; n=32; mean age younger mild CP= 34.0 (5.9) months; mean age younger severe CP = 39.8 (2.8) months; mean age older milder CP = 54.5 (7.0) months; mean age older severe CP = 54.6 (6.4) months)

• SEM for Developmental Quotients: GM=1.1, FM=2.5, Total Motor (TM)=1.6
• SEM for Percentile Scores: GM=0.5, FM=4.4, TM=1.2
• SEM for Raw Scores: GM=3.0, FM=3.0, TM=4.7
• SEM for Percentage Scores: GM=1.3, FM=1.3, TM=1.1

Test/Retest Reliability

Cerebral Palsy: (Wang et al, 2006)

• Excellent Test-Retest for Developmental Quotients (DQs): (GM ICC=0.988; FM ICC=0.979; Total Motor ICC=0.984)
• Excellent Test-Retest for Percentile Scores: (GM ICC=0.954; FM ICC=0.919; TM ICC=0.984)
• Excellent Test-Retest for Raw Scores: (GM ICC=0.996; FM ICC=0.993; TM ICC=0.996)

Responsiveness

Cerebral Palsy: (Wang et al, 2006)

• GRI-R values for 3 composites of PDMS-2 were (GRI-R GM=1.7 small change, GRI-R FM=2.3 small change, GRI-R TM=2.3 small change)
• ES Value for each composite was 0.2 (minimum standard proposed indicates a small change)
• SRM values of PDMS-2 percentage scores were: (SRM GM=0.9 trivial to small change, SRM FM=1.0 small change, SRM TM=1.3 small change)

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Intellectual Disabilities (ID): (Wuang et al, 2012; n=141; mean age =42.9 (14.9) months; n=101 classified as having mild intellectual disability)

• SEM for ID: 1.80

PDMS-2 Examiner’s Manual: (Folio & Fewell, 2000; n=2,003; Male n=1,008; Female n=995; European American n=1,367; African American n=273; Hispanic American n=262; Speech Language Disorder n=100; Physical Disorder n=41)

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang et al, 2012) “MDC calculated from 1.96 x √2 x SEM”

• MDC for entire group (n=141): 7.76 (8.2)

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang et al, 2012)

• MCID for entire group (n=141): 8.39

Cut-Off Scores

Dutch Children With and Without Fine Motor: (Van Hartingsveldt et al, 2005; n=18; mean age = 61.9 (9.1) months

• Cut-Off point is 16^th percentile, child is considered to have fine motor problems

At-Risk and Preterm Infants: (Darrah et al, 1998; n=164; male=87 & female=77; n=156 born at ≤36 weeks gestation (mean=28.47 wk., SD=2.58 wk. with a mean birthweight=1108g, SD=301.63 g); n=8 term infants, mean birthweight=3115 g, SD=748.29g)

• In At-Risk and Preterm Infants, the only acceptable Cut-Off point is the 16^th percentile for GM skills in infants at the 4 month age level

Normative Data

Dutch Children With and Without Fine Motor Problems: (Van Hartingsveldt et al, 2005)

• 39% had fine motor problems

Dutch Children Without Fine Motor Problems: (Van Hartingsveldt et al, 2005; n=18; mean age = 62.7 (9.3) months)

• 0% had fine motor problems

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang et al, 2012)

• Standard Score Mean = 100 (15)

PDMS-2 Examiner’s Manual: (Folio & Fewell, 2000; Male n=1,008; Female n=995; European American n=1,367; African American n=273; Hispanic American n=262; Speech Language Disorder n=100; Physical Disorder n=41)

• Mean of Subtest scores of 10(3)
• Quotient Standard Scores are based on a distribution having a mean of 100(15)

Test/Retest Reliability

PDMS-2 Scores for Assessment of Motor Development: (Folio & Fewell, 2000; n=20 for children 2-11 months; n=30 for children 12 through 17 months; Male n=1,008; Female n=995; European American n=1,367; African American n=273; Hispanic American n=262; Speech Language Disorder n=100; Physical Disorder n=41)

• Excellent Test-Retest for subtests (Reflexes=0.82, Stationary=0.96, Locomotion=0.93, Grasping=0.82, Visual-Motor Integration=0.95) for ages 2-11 months
• Excellent Test-Retest for subtests (Stationary=0.85, Locomotion=0.96, Object Manipulation=0.89, Grasping=0.91, Visual-Motor Integration=0.90) for 12-17 months
• Excellent Test-Retest for quotients (except for fine motor quotient) (Gross Motor Quotient=0.84, Fine Motor Quotient=0.73, Total Motor Quotient=0.89) for ages 2-11 months
• Adequate Test-Retest (0.73) for fine motor quotient for ages 2-11 months
• Excellent Test-Retest for quotients (Gross Motor Quotient=0.93, Fine Motor Quotient=0.94, Total Motor Quotient=0.96) for 12-17 months

PDMS-2 Translated into Portuguese: (Saraiva et al, 2011)

• Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=0.85-0.95)

Dutch Children With and Without Fine Motor Problems: (Van Hartingsveldt et al, 2005; n=18; mean age = 61.9 (9.1) months)

• Excellent test-retest reliability (FMQ r=0.98, Standard Score (SS) Grasping r=0.96, SS Visual Motor r=0.84)

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang et al, 2012)

• Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.97)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Infants at Dual Risk (biological & environmental) for Motor Delays: (Snyder et al, 2008; n=35 (n=24 infants under 9 months & n=11 infants older than 9 months); mean chronological age=8 months, 9 days (range=2 months, 19 days to 16 months, 23 days)

• Excellent Interrater reliability (expert examiners and student examiners of AIMs and PDMS-2) for subtests (ICC=0.98 for Reflex; ICC=0.99 for Stationary; and, ICC=1.00 for Locomotion)

PDMS-2 Scores for Assessment of Raters: (Folio & Fewell, 2000; n=60 completed protocols; n=30 completed protocols for 3- and 11-month olds; n=30 completed protocols for 15- through 36-month olds)

• Excellent Interrater reliability for subtests (Reflexes=0.98, Stationary=0.97, Locomotion=0.99, Object Manipulation=0.98, Grasping=0.98, Visual-Motor Integration=0.98)
• Excellent Interrater reliability for quotient (Gross Motor Quotient=0.97, Fine Motor Quotient=0.98, Total Motor Quotient=0.96)

Dutch Children With and Without Fine Motor Problems: (Van Hartingsveldt et al, 2005; n=18; mean age = 61.9 (9.1) months)

• Excellent interrater reliability (FMQ r=0.98, SS Grasping r=0.94, SS Visual-Motor r=0.99)

Internal Consistency

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang et al, 2012)

• Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient=0.89)

PDMS-2 Scores for Assessment of Motor Development: (Folio & Fewell, 2000)

• Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach α=0.89-0.97*)
• 100% of Cronbach’s coefficient alphas for the PDMS-2 reach 0.70; 90% attain 0.80; and, 80% attain 0.90
• Cronbach’s coefficient alphas for the PDMS-2 quotients, all 18 exceed 0.90
• The Cronbach’s coefficient alphas were averaged using z-transformation method for averaging correlation coefficients. The averaged alphas indicate all but one subtest (i.e., stationary = 0.89) have coefficient alphas of 0.90 or above and they range from 0.89-0.96 as shown in the table below
• Averaged Cronbach’s coefficient alphas for quotients were 0.96 and 0.97*

*Scores > 0.90 may indicate redundancy

PDMS-2 Translated into Portuguese: (Saraiva et al, 2011)

• Adequate internal consistency (Cronbach α=0.76-0.95*)

*Scores > 0.90 may indicate redundancy

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Infants at Dual Risk (biological and environmental) for Motor Delays: (Snyder et al, 2008)

• Excellent correlation of AIMS scores and PDMS-2 subscale scores for total sample: (r= >0.80, ρ = ≤0.05)
• Excellent correlation of AIMS scores and PDMS-2 locomotion subscale scores for total sample: (r=0.97)
• Excellent concurrent validity of Infants under 9 months: (r=0.82–0.93)
• Excellent concurrent validity of Infants over 9 months: (r=0.78-0.88)

At-Risk and Preterm Infants: (Darrah et al, 1998)

• At the 18 month evaluation, 128 infants were classified as normal in their development, 14 infants were classified as suspicious in motor development and 22 were classified as abnormal in motor development. Data from 4 months and 8 months were analyzed to determine predictive value of abnormal development at 18 months
• Selected cut-off points correspond to -1 SD=(16^th), -1.5 SD=(6^th), and -2.0 SD=(2^nd) as these are suggested in the manual to delineate between normal, suspicious and abnormal scores
• Poor sensitivity at 4 months when suspicious infants are included with abnormal infants
• Poor specificity at 8 months when suspicious infants are included with abnormal infants
• When suspicious infants are included with normal infants, the only Adequate sensitivity and specificity is for the 16^th percentile cut-off point at 4 months
• PDMS-2 generally demonstrates Poor predictive values in infants who are at-risk or preterm. A possible explanation is the items included at the 4 and 5 month level are achievable by infants with impaired mobility resulting in poor specificity. In contrast, the motor skills at the 8 and 9 month level are complex skills that many typically developing infants are not regularly practicing and therefore results in poor specificity

12 month old Infants: (Connolly, et al, 2006; n=15; mean age=12 months 2 days (9.11 days)

• Poor correlation between SS of FMQ of PDMS-2 and Psychomotor Development Index (PDI) of BSID-II: (r=0.22, ρ =nonsignificant)
• Poor correlation between SS of GMQ of PDMS-2 and PDI of BSID-II: (r=0.30, ρ =nonsignificant)
• Poor correlation between SS of TMQ of PDMS-2 and PDI of BSID-II: (r=0.32, ρ =nonsignificant)
• Poor correlation between age equivalent score on PDMS-2 fine motor subtest and BSID-II Motor Scale: (r=0.13, ρ =nonsignificant)
• Poor correlation between age equivalent score on PDMS-2 stationary and gross motor subtest and BSID-II Motor Scale: (r=0.28, ρ =nonsignicant)
• Poor correlation between fine motor subtest visual motor integration and BSID-II: (r=0.29, ρ =nonsignificant)
• Poor but negative correlation found between age equivalent scores for PDMS-2 gross motor subtest for object manipulation and BSID-II Motor Scale: (r= -0.41, ρ =nonsignificant)
• Excellent and significant correlation between age equivalent scores of PDMS-2 gross motor subtest for locomotion and BSID-II Motor Scale: (r=0.71, ρ <0.05)
• Excellent agreement of scores for classification in average range of motor abilities between PDMS-2 and BSID-II: (93% agreement)

Children with Developmental Delays: (Provost et al, 2004; n=110; mean age=25.3 (9.7) months; range 3-41 months)

• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 age equivalent scores for Reflexes with BSID-II: n=13; (r=0.89, ρ <0.001)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 age equivalent scores for Stationary with BSID-II: (r=0.93, ρ <0.001)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 age equivalent scores for Locomotion with BSID-II: (r=0.97, ρ <0.001)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 age equivalent scores for Object Manipulation with BSID-II: n=95; (r=0.90, ρ <0.001)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 age equivalent scores for Grasping with BSID-II: (r=0.85, ρ <0.001)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 age equivalent scores for Visual Motor Integration with BSID-II: (r=0.94, ρ <0.001)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 GMQ: with BSID-II Motor Scale: (r=0.75, ρ <0.001)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 FMQ with BSID-II Motor Scale: (r=0.67, ρ <0.001)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 TMQ with BSID-II Motor Scale: (r=0.76, ρ <0.001)
• BSID-II mean standard scores (SS) for n=110: (SS=65.6) and PDMS-2 motor quotient (SS=82.8 – 87.0), despite mean off 100 with SD=15 for each test
• More than 75% of the 70 children whose scores on BSID II supported eligibility for services (scores at least 2 SD below mean) would NOT have qualified for service on PDMS-2 score alone
• Approximately 50% of children showing appropriate total motor performance on PDMS-2 were delayed on BSID-II Motor Scale

(Maring & Elbaum, 2007; n=30; mean age=32.9 (9.2) months; range 12-44 months)

• Excellent correlation of age equivalent scores with EIDP age equivalent scores using the Pearson product moment correlation coefficients (r=0.91, ρ<0.01)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 gross motor with EIDP GM (r=0.91, ρ<0.01)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 stationary subtest with EIDP GM (r=0.84, ρ<0.01)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 locomotion subtest with EIDP GM (r=0.95, ρ<0.01)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 object manipulation and EIDP GM (r=0.84, ρ<0.01)
• Children’s age equivalent scores were significantly higher on the EIDP than on the PDMS-2 (t=3.96, ρ=0.001, d=0.72) and an average difference of 3.8 months between the two scores

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang et al, 2012)

• Excellent concurrent validity with BOT-2 (Time Period 1=0.88, Time Period 2=0.84, Time Period 3=0.86)
• Excellent concurrent validity with MABC-2 (Time Period 1=0.84, Time Period 2=0.80, Time Period 3=0.82)
• Excellent concurrent validity of BOT-2, MABC-2 & PDMS-2 for assessing motor function in children with ID (Spearman ρ correlation coefficient ≥ 0.80)
• Adequate predictive validity of PDMS-2, MABC-2, BOT-2 with moderate relationship of Physical Tasks Performance Scale (PTPS) scores

Construct Validity

Dutch Children With and Without Fine Motor Problems: (Van Hartingsveldt et al, 2005)

• Excellent convergent validity with the M-ABC (r=0.69)

Children with Developmental Disabilities: (Van Waelvelde et al, 2007; n=31; mean age=59(6) months)

• Excellent correlation between the total score of the M-ABC and PDMS-2 using Spearman correlation coefficient was: (r=0.76)
• Excellent correlation between GM components of M-ABC and PDMS-2 was: (r=0.71)
• Adequate correlation between FM components of M-ABC and PDMS-2 was: (r=0.48)
• Poor agreement between M-ABC and PDMS-2 with identification of children with mild motor impairments: (K=0.29)

PDMS-2 Administration Manual: (Folio & Fewell, 2000; Male n=1,008; Female n=995; European American n=1,367; African American n=273; Hispanic American n=262; Speech Language Disorder n=100; Physical Disorder n=41)

• Excellent confirmatory factor analysis results support the construct validity of the PDMS-2 (x²/df=3.2; TLI=0.98; RMSEA=0.68) for children birth through 11 months and (x²/df=3.98; TLI=0.96; RMSEA=0.80) for children 12 through 72 months
• Excellent construct correlation between the Gross Motor and Fine Motor abilities (0.79) for children birth through 11 months old and (0.72) for children 12 through 72 months
• Excellent factor loading for all subtests (Stationary=0.71, Locomotion=0.65, Visual-Motor Integration=0.62, Grasping=0.58) except for Adequate loading for Reflexes=0.40 for children birth through 11 months old
• Excellent factor loading for all subtests (Stationary=0.72, Locomotion=0.89, Object Manipulation=0.63, Visual-Motor Integration=0.87) except for Adequate loading for Grasping=0.54 for children 12 through 72 months
• Excellent subtest construct correlation with age (0-71 months) (Reflexes=0.88, Stationary=0.87, Locomotion=0.93, Object Manipulation=0.91, Grasping=0.80, Visual-Motor Integration=0.93)

PDMS-2 Translated into Portuguese: (Saraiva et al, 2011)

• Excellent to Adequate Confirmatory factor analysis (Satorra-Bentler x²=3.3, p=0.349; CFI=1.0, I=0.99, NNFI=0.99, RMSEA=0.013) support that Portuguese version displays same construct and number of items as PDMS-2 (Folio & Fewell, 2000)

Qualitative Manual Assessment Of Motor Control (q Mac) Reviews

Content Validity

PDMS-2 Administration Manual: (Folio & Fewell, 2000; Male n=1,008; Female n=995; European American n=1,367; African American n=273; Hispanic American n=262; Speech Language Disorder n=100; Physical Disorder n=41)

• Content validity was examined by different quantitative statistical analyses as well as through qualitative analyses. The rationale that underlies selection of items and the choice for PDMS-2’s composite score is described; validity of items is ultimately supported by results of conventional item analysis procedures and Item Response Theory (IRT) analyses used to choose items during the developmental stages of test construction; finally, the validity of items is reinforced by the results of differential item functioning analysis used to show the absence of bias in a test’s items.

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Motor Control Definition

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang et al, 2012)

Qualitative Manual Assessment Of Motor Control (q Mac) Free

• No significant floor effect at any of the three time points (Time Period 1=10.5%, Time Period 2=16.8%, Time Period 3=18.8 %) (Wuang et al, 2012)
• No significant ceiling effect at any of the three time points (Time Period 1=12.6%, Time Period 2=13.6%, Time Period 3=17.4%) (Wuang et al, 2012)

Responsiveness

Children with Developmental Delays: (Maring & Elbaum, 2007)

• To reject a null hypothesis with a power level of 0.8 and a significance level of 0.05, a sample size of 30 was determined to be adequate if the effect size of the paired t test is medium to high (d=0.70) and the magnitude of the association is medium to large (r=0.50)

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang et al, 2012)

• Moderate responsiveness in detecting changes in a 6-month interval (ES=0.74; SRM = 0.65)

Bibliography