Assessment tool Summary and Critique: Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2
Title
Authors
Year of Latest
edition
Ages
Intended
pop/diagnostic
groups
Purpose
Primary
Administration
Procedure
Interpretation Focus
Client-centered?
Occupation-based?
OTPF Domain
Peabody Development Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2)
Folio. R., & Fewell, R.
2000; Pro-Ed, publisher Folio.
Birth to 6 years
All disability groups; can be used with typically developing children
Both a norm-referenced and a criteria-referenced, performance-based
standardized assessment tool; consists of six subtests that measure fine and
gross motor performance in including reflexes (for ages 0-12 months),
stationary gross motor skills, locomotion, object manipulation, grasping, and
visual-motor integration.
Performance -based; Child is asked to perform an number of tasks/skills (test
items) and they are rated on their abilities on a 3-pt scale The test kit
includes most of the necessary test equipment and supplies, scoring sheets,
an examiner’s manual, an item administration manual, a motor development
chart, and a programming manual and activity cards. Scoring
instructions/guides provided for each item.
Examines a child’s fine and gross motor skills; Subtest standard scores and
composite standard scores for fine motor, gross motor, and total motor skill
are available, as are age-equivalent scores; compares child’s abilities with
age matched peers; gives delay in performance; not necessarily diagnostic;
can be used to identify children who would benefit from or be eligible for
services to help improve motor skills, the severity of motor skill deficits, and
what type of motor skill problems are evident
Performance-skill based; not occupation-based nor client centered
Performance skill-based in that it involves examining gross motor, visual
motor and fine motor skills; also examine some motor body functions
(reflexes, balance, coordination); used in eval and re-eval phases of OT
Process (based on OTPF)
OTHER info
PSYCHOMETRICS
Standardization
sample
Normative data from 2,003 U.S. children were collected in 1997–1998.
Four major U.S. geographic regions were identified as norming sites,
and children from 46 states and one Canadian province were included.
The normative data were compared with 1997 U.S. Census data and
Validity
Reliability
found to be representative of demographic characteristics to describe
children younger than 5 years, including geographic area, gender, race,
type of residence (rural versus urban), ethnicity, and socioeconomic
status. Overall, the normative data are very impressive, including
recent data and a large representative sample of typical children.
Normative data for children with specific disabilities are not included.
Rationale for the development of test items is described in detail in the
manual, with strong theoretical support, and has also been addressed
and well researched with the earlier version of the test. Various item
analysis techniques were used, including the application of Item
Response Theory and logistic regression to analyze differential item
functioning, which supported the PDMS-2 content. Age-related trends
were established, as the mean PDMS-2 scores increased with age, as
would be expected. Confirmatory factor analysis was also used and
supported the inclusion of the various subtests within each of the fine
and gross motor composites. Concurrent validity was established by
correlating PDMS-2 scores of children from the normative sample with
their scores on the earlier version of the PDMS-2. Resultant
correlations for the fine motor and gross motor composites were
strong, 0.84, and 0.91, respectively. PDMS-2 scores also had moderate
to strong correlations with scores from the gross and fine motor scales
of the Mullen Scales of Early Learning: AGS Edition. PDMS-2 scores
could also discriminate children with physical and mental disabilities
from those without disabilities.
Internal consistency measures using Cronbach’s coefficient alphas
ranged from 0.84 to 0.98, indicating that test items measuring the
same construct (fine and gross motor skills) were strongly associated
with one another. Standard errors of measurement for each of the
subtests and composite scores by age group are acceptable. Test-retest
reliability was evaluated with two groups of children aged 2 through 11
months (n = 20) and 12 to 17 months (n = 30) with acceptable results,
with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.73 to 0.96. Inter-rater
reliability for scoring completed protocols has been evaluated, with
strong coefficients ranging from 0.96 to 0.98. However, it is believed
that discrepancies related to examiner error would more likely occur in
the rating of the child’s performance on test items rather than during
scoring procedures, which has yet to be tested.
CritiqueOverall strong normative data, reliability and validity; plenty of
strengths/weaknesses evidence in the test manual
Utility
Criteria
Ease of
Learning,
Training
Ease of
Administration
prep, time,
set- up
Information
The PDMS-2 is easy to learn, although time and practice are required to
become familiar with the administration of the test items.
Familiarity of
tools/tasks
Based on knowledge of child motor skills development; items would be very
familiar to most people knowledgeable about child development and typical
child activities
Reasonable; a little lengthy and takes some time to understand baseline/start
items, and when to discontinue (establish ceiling)
Once completed would take about 10-15 min to score; easy to learn
Layout of
protocol
Scoring time,
ease
Cost
Critique of
Utility
It takes about 60 minutes to administer the entire battery, although the
administration process may be broken up if necessary. Space for running, ball
throwing, and kicking is necessary. Some set up and prep time (10 min).
Would need to move through items quickly to keep child engaged.
It is relatively expensive, with the test kit costing approximately $540.00,
available from www.pearsonassessments.com.
Lengthy, but fairly easy to learn; most items enjoyable for child/playful