Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: In this study, a new mobility screening for children from eight to ten years is evaluated for its reliability and validity. Methods: 324 children (197 boys and 127 girls, mean age of 9.30 ± .89 years) participated. All underwent the MobiScreen 8-10 and a further motor test. Item split times including penalty seconds of MobiScreen 8-10 and raw values and percentile ranks of the additional test are used to evaluate reliability and validity. Significance level: p < .05. Results: Coefficients for inter-rater: r = .99 to r = 1.00, for test-retest: r = .35 to r = .77, for paralleltest: r = -.02 to r = .62, and Cronbach's α = .62. Explorative factor analysis shows a single factor with an eigenvalue >1 (variance explanation 44 %). Criterion validity: r = -.53 to r = -.71. Discriminant analysis: significant differences between healthy and disabled children in all tasks excepting transporting. Diagnostic accuracy: The Area Under the Curve reaches a value of .89. Conclusions: Mostly all psychometric properties could be reached in a medium to high degree. Retest and Paralleltest Reliability will be repeated. Next step is the determination of a cutoff value to classify into “normal” and “conspicuous”.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andrea Dincher (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: