CONTENT

PREFACE VII

THANKS XIII

1 Logic and Overview of PDMS-2 1

1. Underlying Logic of PDMS-2 1

2. General Overview of PDMS-2

2

3. Uses of PDMS-2 8

2 Information to Consider Before the Test 9

1.Examiner's Competence 9

2. Time Required To Take the Test 10

3.Environment For Test 10

4. Counting Errors and Situations of Individuals 11

5.Other Information About the Tests 12

3 Score and Application 13

Handling Procedures 13

2. Scores of the PDMS-2

4 Interpretation of the Results of the PDMS-2 23

1. Complete Profile/Summary 23

2.Scores and Interpretation of the Tests 29

 31
3. What the Composite Ratio Measures

4.What Do the Subtests Measure 33

5.Analysis of Discrepancy in Behavior 34

6. Precautions in the Interpretation of Results 36

7. Use of the Motor Activities Program of the PDMS-2 37

8. Share the Test Results 38

5 Regulatory Information 39

1. Sample Selection Procedures 39

2. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample 40

3. Normative Scores 40

6 Reliability of the Test 45

1.Sampling Content 46

2. Sampling Time 48

3. Differences between Scores 49

4. Summary of the Reliability of the Results 51

7 Validation of Test Results 53

1. Validation of Content Description 53

2.Validation of the Prediction Criteria 58

3.Construction and Identification of Validity 60

4. Summary of the Validity of the Results 66

REFERENCES 69
APPENDIX A Conversion of the Raw Scores of the Sub-Tests into Percentages
and Normal Scores 73

APPENDIX B Conversion of the Sum of the Normal Scores to Percentages and

Quotients 111

APPENDIX C Conversion of Raw Scores to Equivalent Age 117

APPENDIX D Conversion of Normal Scores and Percentages to Z Scores 121

 PREFACE

The Publication of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales Second Edition (PDMS-

It is the culmination of more than a decade of research by the authors, a

response to the criticisms suggested by the original improvisation of Scales of

development

Peabody Motor (PDMS) (FOLIO & FEWELL, 1983) and the modifications based on the

feedback from the examiners. The purpose of this preface is to review

briefly how PDMS has developed and changed over the years, and

summarize the written comments about the test and describe the characteristics

from this review.

PEABODY MOTOR DEVELOPMENT SCALES

The original impetus for the development of the PDMS dates back to our efforts to

improvise the evaluation and programming of motor development in young children with

disabilities. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, we could not

find no measure of motor development that could be used to evaluate and

planning interventions for young children with disabilities. We studied

motor development in children and we identify the importance of the sequence of

skills in the field of gross and fine motor development. The culmination of

these efforts were our 1974 publication of an experimental version of the

PDMS (Folio & DuBose, 1974). This publication included an evaluation scale of
motor development and a variety of scheduled activities.

The additional work with the scales was completed by Folio (1975) as part of his

doctoral thesis. The evidence of the reliability and validity of the experimental version of the

scales, as well as the effectiveness of development activities in growth

motor in preschoolers was presented in this work.

Didactic Resources published the first commercially available version of the PDMS (Folio

& Fewell, 1983). At that moment, it was the only available test battery that evaluated

the gross and fine motor skills and was standardized in a population of

children 84 months old. Since this was published, the PDMS has been

worldwide accepted by diagnosticians, occupational therapists, therapists

physicists, psychologists, early intervention specialists, and adapted by teachers

physical education.

The PDMS was a unique product because it provided researchers in a way

joint a motor development test and a series of activities for problem solving

specific problems. The scale of gross motor development had 170 points

grouped into five (5) classes of skills: Reflexes, Balance, Reception and

Propulsion, Locomotor and Non-Locomotor. The Fine Motor Scale had 112 points.

grouped into four (4) skill areas: Grasping, Hand Use, Eye Coordination

Hand and Manual Skill.

The letter activities provided and individualized the program based on the

motor intervention for the evaluation of results. The PDMS included a brochure

of 12 pages of response scoring, which contains a summary sheet, a

Profile form of motor development, and a detailed response for each scale. It is

organized a profile to show the child's motor skills in each area of

skills and for the total scale.

The PDMS was standardized on a sample of 617 children from 20 states in

United States. Thirty-three examiners examined the children. The collection of

The sampling and standardization of the instrument was supervised by Dr. John.

Svinicki.

The items were classified on a 3-point scale (2, 1, 0), which was applied from the

as follows: The children received a score of two (2) points when they performed

a skill according to a specific criterion; One (1) point when its

the behavior was a clear similarity to the main item but they did not comply

fully the criterion; and zero (0) points when they failed in the attempt or there was none

evidence that the skill was emerging.

The reliability of the scores for fine motor skills and gross motor skills was reported.

for being high. The retests and the reliability of the graders were reported by

to have ninety (90) of coefficient in the scales of fine and gross motor skills and in the

total score. The validity of the content was supported by showing that the items of the

tests were similar to the skills reported in the research literature

about motor development and in the items on other motor scales. The validity of the

construction was determined showing that the PDMS scores increased in

age function. (Older children scored higher than younger children

small). The validity of the construction was also demonstrated, showing that the

children with motor problems scored significantly lower than children from

a normal sample.

In addition, the validity related to the criterion was demonstrated by the comparison.

of forty-three (43) children in the PDMS with their scores on the Scales of

Bailey's Child Development (Bayley, 1969). The PDMS scores in Balance,

Locomotor and Non-Locomotor in the subtests were significantly

correlated with Bailey's Psychomotor scores (The coefficients were

0.62, 52, and 0.43 respectively). The Fine Motor scores of the PDMS are

they were significantly correlated with the Mental scales of Bailey. The scores of

the four (4) categories of Fine Motor skills were significantly

related to Bailey's Psychomotor and Mental scores. The result of

the coefficients ranged from .76 to .80.

In 1986, Didactic Resources was purchased by the Development of Materials.

Allen, Texas Learning (DLM). Later, (DLM) was purchased by Riverside.

Publishing Company and the review of the PDMS began. In 1996 PRO-ED purchased the

PDMS of Riverside Publishing Company and complete the review.

Since its initial publication, the PDMS has been globally revised. The revisions

they have been published in journals, in books of critiques to tests, and in books dedicated to

evaluate current practices, early intervention, adapted to physical education and the

motor development. Most of the reviews were complementary to the

first edition. Among the highlights of these comments, the critics

they praised the scoring system that allowed for partial credit for performance and

It allowed the examiners to assess fine and gross skills separately.

Additionally, they liked having groups of items to particularly highlight the

strengths and weaknesses of the child's motor performance. The following are excerpts and

critics' comments:

• While the author's goal is to bridge the gap between evaluation and the
programming is commendable, the inclusion of card activities as part
from the test kit and the dedicated attention to them in the manual, it is likely
finding some disapproval... Many therapists find the use likely
of PDMS as an evaluative tool. The PDMS particularly seems well
 suitable for the evaluation of older children and children suspected of having
delays in the development of infants and children with known mild delays to
moderate or disorders in motor development. (Palisano & Lydic, 1984, pp. 74-
75).

• PDMS has several unique characteristics. First, it contains a very set

useful activity cards for programming purposes. This is appropriate
for non-disabled, moderately disabled, and severely disabled children
disabled. Beyond that, unlike many other scales of development,
this has been standardized and the standards are available in a sample
national. Finally, the PDMS provides a comprehensive system of
evaluation and programming that can be used to develop a program
of very profound prescriptive diagnosis for children who need intensively
interventions in the motor skills development. (Venn, 1987, pp. 312-313)

Eason (1984) commented that the strengths of the PDMS include a scoring system of

three (3) points, the inclusion of the two fine and coarse motor components, the

standardization of the plan and technical characteristics. Ulrich (1984) thought that the

PDMS had certain advantages over other motor tests, in the sense that it includes a

greater number of gross and fine motor items. Also the gross motor field and

they were divided into four (4) small skill groups, which helped the

therapist or teachers to identify the skill groups that were needed

rehabilitation. Horvart and Kalakian (1996) noted that the PDMS was easy to use and

provided valid information that was helpful for identifying the needs of

development. However, they noticed that the accompaniment of the cards was

Activities were particularly useful in the analysis of movement.

However, critics were generous in praising the PDMS, they were critical in

Many aspects of the test were reviewed and suggestions were made to improve future editions.

First, a great weakness was shown in the way the reception and propulsion were.

the dotted items. Eason (1984) and Ulrich (1984) pointed out that many of the
items first measured the distance and precision of the launched objects instead

of the motor model used by the child to make an accurate throw.

The therapists who used the PDMS suggested having a specific criterion.

established for scores 1 and 0. Users also

they suggested that the presentation of illustrations of measured physical movements,

would clarify the confusion in many items. Other examiners thought that some

materials were bulky to transport and should be removed from the

test. Block (1995) warned examiners not to rely exclusively on the

skills measured by the PDMS when writing the Education Program

Individualized Child Plan or Individual Family Service Plan. He suggested that the

examiners should translate the performance in children, from the items of the PDMS, into

daily functional skills before writing motor programs

individualized.

CHARACTERISTICS OF PDMS-2

After considering the review of the test criticisms, comments and

examiners' queries, and our own experience with the PDMS, we

We improvised and updated the second edition of the PDMS in the following ways:

New regulatory data was collected in the winter of 1997 and in spring.
from 1998.

2.Characteristics of the normative sample related to geography, gender, race, and

other critical variables that are the same as those reported in Statistics
Abstracts from the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 1997) and are therefore
representative of the current populations of the United States.
3. The regulatory information has been stratified by age.

Studies show the absence of gender and racial prejudices have been
added.

5. The reliability of the coefficients was computed in subgroups of the sample.

regulation (example Individuals with motor disabilities or disorder of
language-speak, Europeans, Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans
women, men) as well as for the entire normative sample.

6. New valid studies have been conducted; special attention has been dedicated
to show that the test is valid for a wide variety of subgroups thus
like for the general population.

7.The new scoring criteria were written to clearly specify the

performance levels required in children to receive 2, 1, or 0 points in each
item.

8.The illustrations have been added to enhance the application of each item.

The reviews have been conducted in the application format and scoring of
the test.

10. The criticized items in the early edition were removed.

11. The Letter Activity has been reviewed and reformed in an instruction and a
treatment program, the Motor Activities Program, in accordance
with current practices in therapy and motor programming.

12.Each item was evaluated using conventional item analysis to choose

"good" statistical items and a new differential analysis item of
functioning to find partial points.
 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PDMS-2

The PDMS-2 consists of six (6) subtests that measure the interrelationship of the

motor skills in early life development. This was designated for

evaluate motor skills in children from birth to five (5) years

and the reliability and validity has been determined empirically. The normative sample

consists of 2003 residents in 46 states. The PDMS-2 can be used by

occupational therapists, physical therapists, diagnosticians, specialists in

early intervention, adapted physical education teachers, psychologists, and others

who are interested in examining motor skills in young children.

The methods used to construct the PDMS-2 and the application procedures,

Scores and interpretation of the scales are described in the manual later on. Before

to address these topics, however, the information about the PDMS-2 is useful.

Specifically, the information provided in this section describes the sub-

tests that make up the PDMS-2, the composition can be formed by the

combination of the subtests and the components of the scales.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBTESTS

The six (6) subtests that make up the PDMS-2 are briefly described in

this section. The detailed justification for the selection of formats, items, and the

components are discussed in the section Description of the Content of the Validity of

Chapter 7; Application and scoring procedures are presented in Chapter 3;

The interpretation of results is described in Chapter 4.

REFLECTIONS. The Reflexes subtest of 8 items measures aspects of skills in

the children to react automatically to events in the environment. Because the

Reflexes typically integrate at the moment when a child is 12 months old.

The subtest applies only to children from birth to 11 months.

STATIONARY: The Stationary subtest of 30 items measures the ability of a child.

to maintain control of his body when he is the center of gravity and maintains the

balance.

LOCOMOTION: The locomotion subtest of 89 items measures the ability of the

Children moving from one place to another. The measured actions include crawling,

walking, running, jumping, and hopping forward.

OBJECT MANIPULATION: The Object Manipulation subtest of 24

items

measures include catching, throwing and kicking. Because these skills do not appear

until the child has reached the age of 11 months, this subtest is only for

children 12 months and older.

GRASPING: The Grasp subtest of 26 items measures children's ability.

to use the hands. This begins with the ability to grasp an object with a

hand and progressive actions that involve the controlled use of the fingers of both

hands.

VISUAL-MOTOR INTEGRATION: The Visual-Motor Integration subtest of 72

items, measures children's ability to use visual perceptual skills and

carrying out complex eye-hand coordination tasks, such as reaching and

grabbing an object, building with blocks, and copying designs.

DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPOUNDS

The results of the subtests can be used to generate three (3) indices.

global motor performance called compounds.

GROSS MOTOR QUOTIENT. The Gross Motor Quotient (GMQ) is a composition

of the results of the subtests that measure the use of large muscle groups.

Three of the four subtests make up this score:

Reflexes (Birth to 11 months)

2. Stationary (all ages)

3. Locomotion (All ages)

4. Object Manipulation (12 months and up)

FINE MOTOR QUOTIENT: The Fine Motor Quotient (FMQ) is a composition of the

results of two (2) subtests that measure the use of small muscular systems:

Grabbing (All ages)

2.Motor-Visual Integration (All ages)

TOTAL MOTOR RATIO: The Total Motor Ratio (TMQ) is made up of the

combination of results from gross and fine motor subtests. Due to this,
it is the best estimate of all motor skills.

TEST COMPONENTS

The PDMS-2 kit includes the Examiner's Manual, the Profile/Summary Form,

Examiner's Record Book, Guide for Item Management, Program

of Motor Activities, Peabody Motor Development Chart, Manipulator and a

optional computerized scoring program.

EXAMINER'S MANUAL: The Examiner's Manual provides the rationale for the

test, a description of the structures that were measured, information

psychometric reliability and validity, general instructions for application and

test score, information and interpretation of results and normative tables.

PROFILE/SUMMARY FORM: The Profile/Summary Form allows the examiner

record the scores of the children from the PDMS-2 and present the performance graphically

of the children. In this way, the examiner records the raw scores in the PDMS-2,

percentages, the equivalent ages, the standard scores for the subtests and

the quotients; The basic standard scores of the PDMS-2 for the subtests and

quotients are in the profile section to obtain a gross estimate of the

strengths

of mastery during the test in the Domain Section Profile of the Items,

allowing the examiner to compare the child's performance on the mastered items

with the normative sample.

EXAMINER'S REGISTRY BOOK: Each Examiner's Registry Book,

contains all the items of the PDMS-2. The books contain abbreviated instructions

for the application of the items, once again the examiner becomes thoroughly familiar with

a detailed instruction found in the Item Application Guide. The Books

clearly contain marked entry points to be used and located at

start of each subtest based on the child's age.

MOTOR ACTIVITY PROGRAM: The Motor Activity Program is

the instruction and treatment program of PDMS-2. This consists of 104

activities organized and developed by six skills units. After

that the child's motor skill has been evaluated and the examiner has completed

In all sections of the Profile/Summary Form, the examiner selects from

Motor Activities Program activities to facilitate the child's development in

specific areas of skills.

PEABODY MOTOR DEVELOPMENT GRAPH: The Development Graph

provides the examiner with a convenient reference for most of the

skills measured by the PDMS-2 and the ages at which 50% of the sample

regulation carries out the skill. Each subtest is represented and in the illustrations

children appear showing some of the described behaviors.

TEST MANIPULATORS: The Manipulators needed for the

application of all levels of PDMS-2 are listed in Figures 1.1 and

1.2. The first figure shows the materials included in the test kit.

The second figure shows the materials provided by the examiner. The examiner
must be able to find additional material in children's programs, preschool and

primary, physical therapy or occupational therapy rooms, gyms, or game rooms. The

The examiner should use materials as similar as possible to those shown in

figures 1.1 and 1.2.

OPTIONAL COMPUTERIZED SCORE OF PDMS-2 AND REPORTING SYSTEM:

The Optional Computerized Scoring of PDMS-2 and the Reporting System allow for

Examiner, score the PDMS-2 with precision and speed. The program converts the

raw scores in standard scores, in percentile ranges, equivalent ages and

generate appropriate reports to be permanently included in the record of the

students. This program can be used on IBM-compatible computers.

Windows.

USES OF PDMS-2

The PDMS-2 has five (5) main uses: First, the results of PDMS-2 can

to be used to estimate the relative motor competence of the child compared to their peers.

Second, the GMQ and FMQ can be compared to determine if a child is gifted.

in their motor skills. Third, the PDMS-2 is valuable for education and the

intervention therapy because both qualitative and quantitative aspects of the

individual skills are assessed. Skills deficits can be

identified and translated into individual goals and objectives. The quantitative information

it was gathered in the child's performance during the successive application of tests that

allowed the examiner to make comparisons through applications. Finally, the

PDMS-2 has value as a research tool because the results can

to be used to study the nature of motor development in various populations of

children, the role of motor skills in academic success and in the effectiveness of various

motor interventions.

The Tests that are used for a purpose, for which the PDMS-2 was built,

they should meet rigorous technical criteria, such as those advocated by the Society

American Psychological Association (1985). The PDMS-2 was built with a clear criterion.

specific, especially when they refer to reliability, validity, information

regulations and methods for reporting scores.

 INFORMATION TO CONSIDER BEFORE THE TEST (CHAPTER 2)

The most important aspects that the examiner must take into account before

apply the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale – Second Edition (PDMS-2) test, it

discussed in this Chapter. These aspects include information about: a)

Examiner Competence, b) Time required to administer the test, c) Medium

Environment for testing, d) Accounting for situations and subject error, and e) Other

information about the test.

COMPETENCE OF THE EXAMINER

The examiners who provide and interpret the PDMS-2 should have a

understanding of: test statistics, general government procedures

for the application of the test, scoring and interpretation, specific information of the

test in fine and gross motor skills and development in children who are not progressing

typically. The supervised practice in the application and interpretation of the test

gross and fine motor skills are desirable. This experience can be

obtained through different modes. Many of the trainings can be

acquired in courses from universities dedicated to evaluation. These courses,

they are frequently found in occupational therapy departments, therapy

physics, adaptable physical education, and special education among others. The workshops

supported by agencies, local schools or private clinics are other ways of

training. Examiners without that experience should have difficulty in

give, score, and interpret the PDMS-2.

Examiners using the PDMS-2 for the first time should have in

count the following recommendations:

1. Study the content of the manual carefully. Ask a colleague or

supervisor any information that you do not understand.

2.Practice thoroughly in the application and scoring of the items of the

subtests.Practice applying the test on at least three (3) children
before applying it to a real situation. Ask someone with experience in the
application of the test to observe its application and assist in scoring
interpretation. We recommend that the new examiners
demonstrate 100% accuracy in the punctuation of the Profile/Summary format
before performing the task independently.

3. Develop a relaxed and comfortable relationship with the child before applying the
test. Maintain and establish eye contact and show interest in the
child's performance. His attention will encourage the child to give his best effort.

4. When the child cannot quickly complete a task, move on to the next one.
item. Young children feel frustrated if they experience delays
frequent in the presentation of the items.

5.Be sensitive to the needs of children with disabilities or delays in

the development and present instructions in an appropriate way for each child
(see "Application of PDMS-2 for children with Disabilities" in Chapter 3).
 TIME REQUIRED TO TAKE THE TEST

The time required to apply the entire PDMS-2 test varies from 45 minutes.

approximately up to 60 minutes. The subtests include the compounds

Thick Engines and/or Fine Motors, which can be applied in 20 or 30 minutes. The

application time is kept to a minimum due to the inclusion of the basics up to

maximum and by applying a select group of items for each child. Testing

each child with a disability usually requires longer periods of time. The

tests can be divided into short sessions if the child has an attention span

very short or if other conditions make it more convenient to apply them in

individual sessions at different times. We recommend that each

scale will be completed in a period of 5 days.

ENVIRONMENT FOR TESTING

The environment to apply the test can be a room, hall, or also a

open space. All applications do not necessarily have to be in the same

space or at the same time. Arrange the application space for the test to

minimize distractions. If possible, the room should be noise-free or

people, however, if a child is reluctant to separate from their parents or caregiver,

allow them to be present during the testing application. Also, allow the parent or

Caregiver hold the child if you believe it will increase the likelihood that the child
will respond.

When I applied the subtest of Gross Motor Skills, I used a mat and a table.

cushioned, or a suitable carpeted floor. With children on the move, when applying the test

activities such as throwing the ball or running are required. The stairs are

They need close attention when the items require it. The child must wear rubber shoes.

or non-slip like sneakers. It is better to leave the child barefoot than in socks.

Some items, particularly in the Gross Motor subtests, require

measurable distances, tape lines or targets. It is important to prepare the materials.

before applying the test to the child. The examiner can easily recognize when

special materials are needed because they are shown in bold in the Book of

Examiner registration is specified in the Item Administration Guide.

In the Fine Motor Skills subtests, the items specify that the child must be

seated. He or she must be on the examiner's or an adult's lap or on a

sitting table, a high chair, or some other safe place with support

similar. Applying the fine motor skills test, in a child of age

preschool, it is preferable for the child to be sitting at a table that allows him or her to

she should be comfortable and put her feet on the floor. If the child's feet do not touch the floor,

provide a box or a stool for the child to rest their feet properly

comfortable. If the child is able to sit regularly in an adapted chair,

then it is essential to use it in the application of the items requiring the position

to sit down.
 ACCOUNTING FOR SITUATIONS AND SUBJECT-MISTAKE

Lyman (1991) noted that the reliability of any test can be affected by five

inherent sources of error: (a) test content, (b) stability over time, (c)

examiner score, (d) the examinee, and (e) situation. When these are considered

sources of error, the first three are the responsibility of the designers of the

test. Chapter 6 presents the information on the reliability of PDMS-2 and shows that

the results can be interpreted confidentially.

The other two sources of error arise from the disagreement about situations in which children

they are evaluated and what is inside them. Numerous factors can affect these

Two sources of error. An examiner has the responsibility to control and count the

obvious variables that can adversely affect the child's performance (noise in the

room, no breaks, low light, uncomfortable furniture). In all situations, these

sources of errors and others should be considered in the analysis of results.

How a situation influences a child's performance tests, it cannot be

measured accurately. Similarly, how physical and emotional well-being will contribute

the error in the test cannot be determined precisely. Therefore, the

examiners must be alert to certain conditions (fatigue, health status,

nervousness, attitude towards the test, level of attention). Because this type of

Information is subjective and based on impressions; it should only be treated as a factor.

possible that could have influenced the performance.

 OTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE TEST

Some important concerns about the test were not included in

previous sections of this chapter. We suggest that the examiner also

consider the following points related to motivation and application of the

test.

1.Have all the necessary materials available for the application of the
test, including the Examiner's Manual, Guide for Application of the
Items, The Examiner's Notepad, The Profile/Summary Form and the
manipulators. Attention: Some of the required manipulators in the
PDMS-2 application, are not included in the kit and need to be
acquired by the examiner before administering the test (See Figure 1.2
Chapter 1)

2.Apply the subtests in a quiet, comfortable, and distraction-free environment.

Keep the child comfortable with the task.

4.Do not comment through speech or gestures on the accuracy of any item.

5.Stop if the child is tired or loses interest. Continue the test another time.
moment.

6. Every now and then, you will think that the results of an application in
particular are not valid (the child was sick, something happened during the session
of the application that distracted or confused the child, the results were
notably different from what the examiner expected). In these cases to
the child should be retested at another time.

7. Apply the test, using the Examiner's Scoring Book only after
to have a thorough understanding of the instructions in the Application Guide of
the items. The abbreviated instructions for the items are provided in the
Examiner's Notebook for the convenience of the examiner. The same
The book can be used to apply the PDMS-2 four (4) times to the same child.
 APPLICATION AND SCORE

(CHAPTER 3)

THE GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS For the application and scoring of Peabody

Motor Development Scales-Second Edition (PDMS-2) are presented in this

chapter. These aspects include information about the procedures of

application and test score.

APPLICATION PROCEDURES

This section describes how the PDMS-2 is used to obtain normative scores

to plan institutional programs. This is followed by procedures that are

they are used when testing children with disabilities.

To obtain a valid interpretation of a child's performance on the PDMS-2, the

scales must be applied exactly as specified in the Application Guide

of the Items. This guide provides the examiner with a complete description of each

item, an illustration of the activity, and a scoring criterion. The guide is to be used

as a reference when the examiner has any questions about the application

of the items or the score. For convenience, a shortened version of this material

is included in the Examiner's Register. The examiner could give and score
the Examiner's Book Annotation test only after being familiar with

the Application Guide for the Items.

Occasionally, an examiner will want to test a child's ability for purposes

of instructions or treatment program. In this instance, the addresses may

to be adapted to fit the individual needs of the child, keeping the

same time the intent of the item. When the purpose of the test is at the same time

eligibility or placement and instruction or programming treatment for a child with

disability, the examiner should first apply the item as indicated.

APPLICATION OF PDMS-2 ITEMS

To apply an item correctly, the examiner must follow the instructions.

written in the Item Application Guide. The instructions vary by the variety of

items. It is important for the examiner to follow the exact procedures as some

instructions that are read and others that are demonstrated. The instructions must be

repeated up to three times (sometimes called trials) for each item if they are

necessary to give the child a chance to achieve a maximum score in the

item. For example, some items require the child to demonstrate a criterion in two or

three essays to achieve the maximum score. If the child meets the criterion with a score

In the first essay, a score of 2 and the criteria for a score of 2 do not indicate two of the three.

essays, then the examiner marks "2" for that item in the Record Book of

Examiner. If the criterion for a score of 2 requires two out of three essays, then

the examiner must administer another test to the child to meet the criteria. If the child

does not meet the performance criteria in a second trial, the child is given a

third and last trial. If the child loses interest in an item before the third trial, the
The examiner must apply another item and return to the previous one later. In summary, each

The item is applied until the child receives 2 or 3 trials.

After the third and final trial of an item, the examiner can do one of two things.

things. In most circumstances, marking the appropriate score by

the performance (2, 1, 0) and if, in the clinical vision of the examiner, the child's performance

it was not optimal due to a non-motor disability, the examiner can reapply the

item using appropriate instructions. For example, if a child is deaf or

has a severe language reception deficit, may not hear or understand the

instructions that the examiner reads to the child, as required by the Record Book

from the examiner, the examiner could reapply the item that could allow the child

understand the instruction. The examiner must not touch the child or place him or her to

carry out a task, but it must show the action so that the requirement is met

Of course. Some examiners may use a doll to demonstrate the task. The

the examiner must use their own clinical judgment when the time is appropriate to

use adapted instructions and should continue them in the next section. When

the adaptations are used, the standards for the tests are not accurate, because

the adaptations were not used when the test was standardized. We

we recommend that the annotations should be appropriate and that the recorded scores

how they should normally be, with a clear instruction that they should be

considered as unstandardized scores due to the adapted application of

some items.

APPLICATION OF PDMS-2 TO CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

As mentioned in the Preface, we developed the original PDMS by the

need for an instrument that could provide information about the development of
motor skills in children with disabilities. When the scales were applied to

children with disabilities, it was not possible to strictly adhere to the instructions

provided. We offer the following suggestions:

1. Make notes in the Examiner's Note Book to identify the

special adaptations made in the application of the item. Some items could
a greater modification may be necessary or they could be completely omitted. If the
examiner omits an item, the score must be 0.

2.Stick to the scoring criteria as closely as possible. However, if not...

possible, modify the punctuation and make a note in the Notebook of
Examiner.

3.Ask someone who knows the child well about the extent of the
child's disability to understand instructions, see moving objects
in space, etc., and adapt the application of the test.

PDMS-2 SCORING

The general instructions for scoring the PDMS-2 are presented in this

section. Specifically, it includes information about the punctuation criterion,

application of the test and annotation of comments.

SCORING CRITERION

The PDMS-2 rules are based on the scoring of each item as 2, 1, or 0. The

examiner decides how to score each item based on their judgment of performance

of the child and a specific criterion provided for each item. The general criterion for the

the scores of the items are as follows:

The child performs the item according to the specific domain criterion.

The child's performance shows a clear resemblance to the specific mastery criterion.

but it does not fully meet the criterion.

0 The child cannot or could not attempt the item, or the attempt does not demonstrate that the

skill is emerging.

In general, the examiner will have a small difficulty in deciding when a

The answer receives a score of 2, because the child's performance has or has not stopped.

meet the domain criterion. In the first edition of PDMS-2, some examiners

they found it difficult to judge whether an answer should be scored as 0 or 1, because

that the specific criterion was not provided for each item. The PDMS-2 has addressed this

problem, giving the examiner a clear explanation of the scoring criterion of 1

or 0 on each item of the test.

The Application Guide for the Items provides the examiner with a detailed description.

of each item in the PDMS-2 with illustrations and the scoring criteria. Once the

the examiner becomes efficient in the use of PDMS-2 the Guide will not be needed

for the application of the test. The abbreviated instructions included in the Book of

Notes will be sufficient to allow the examiner to administer the test.

APPLICATION OF THE TEST

To reduce the application time, the input of points, the basic and the maximum are

used in all but in one subtest. For the five subtests - Stationary,

Locomotion, Object Manipulation, Grasping and Visual-Motor Integration, the age of

child determines the item with which the test begins. The remaining subtests,
Reflexes are applied only to children under 1 year old and the test always starts with

the first item. However, when the examiner is administering the PDMS-2 to a child

mayor with motor or neurological disabilities, it can be appropriate and informative

apply the Reflex test.

ENTRY POINTS: The entry points are marked on each

subtest in the Examiners' Recording Book. The entry points were

empirically determined to allow the examiner to start on an item, where

75% of the children in a normative sample exceeded the age. When applied to the

test children with disabilities, the examiner must use clinical judgment to

determine the most appropriate entry of points. That is, start the application

where the child can be more successful.

BASIC LEVEL: This is established when the child receives a score of 2 out of 3

items continuous. The last three 2s before 1 or 0 come to be the basic level. The

the examiner begins the test at the entry point of the item. If the child does not

earns 2 in each of the three items applied - that is, if the child scores 0 or 1 in

any of the first three items applied, starting from the point of

entry-the examiner should apply the test from behind until the child obtains

2 in three consecutive items. This is the basic one. All items below the basic are 2.

points.

MAXIMUM LEVEL: Once the basic has been established, the examiner applies

progressively more difficult items until establishing a maximum. The maximum is

established when the child has 0 in each of the three continuous items. After
that the maximum has been established, the test does not continue. All items above

the maximum is 0. The own use of the basic level and the maximum level is illustrated in the

Figures 3.1 and 3.2.

In the example presented in Figure 3.1, the test begins with item 13 of the

locomotion subtest because Kevin was 7 months old. Progressively

Items with greater difficulty were applied until Kevin obtained 0 out of three items.

continuous, this way he could obtain the maximum in item 22. Kevin reached a basic level throughout

along the way receiving a score of 2 out of three items online (items 15 to 17)

and a maximum receiving a score of 0 out of three items online (items 20 to the

22). No further tests were necessary. In summary, Kevin received a score of 2 in

items 1 to 17 for a total of 34 points. Two additional scores of 1 were

data in items 18 and 19 totaling 36 points.

In Figure 3.2, the basic level and the maximum level of Kisha for the subtest of

Motor-Visual Integration is presented. Because Kisha is 48 months old, her test

It started at item 61. Kisha received a score of 2 on item 61 and 1 on item 62.

Why a score of 2 was not obtained on item 62, it was necessary to discontinue the

test and restart from item 60 to set a level

basic (3 continuous 2 points in a line). In the test from behind, Kisha received 2

points on items 59, 58, and 57, establishing the basic level. To establish the level

maximum, items with greater difficulty were applied. Following the application of item 57,

the examiner resumed the test at item 63, because Kisha previously

she received a score of 1 on item 62. In the test, Kisha scored 0 for the

items 63 and 64, 1 for items 65 and 66 and 0 for items 67 to 69. The test was

discontinued when the maximum level was established (three 0s in a row). Because the

Items 57 to 59 were the basics, Kisha received a score of 2 for each item, 1
up to 59 for a total of 118. After that, Kisha received credit for the points earned

at the maximum level. She was additionally awarded 6 points to give her a total

a score of 124 in the Visual-Motor Integration subtest.

RECORDING OF THE COMMENTS

Additional information about the child can be obtained through careful

observation during the test. This information can be used when one is

writing a report summarizing the child's performance in the PDMS-2. The

the examiner is encouraged to observe and note the following behaviors:

The boy is interested in the homework.

2. The child focuses on understanding the instructions (looks at the examiner,

listen, then look at the material, clarify instructions, become aware of
what must be done).

3.The child focuses on problem-solving (recites the instructions when the

or she performs the task, quickly moves the manipulators with little
attention to the instructions

The child comments or responds non-verbally to the tasks

5. The child responds in a latent or persistent manner.

6. The child uses self-correction.

The child prefers to use their hand for grabbing, drawing, cutting, throwing, and in
similar tasks

8. The directionality of the child transferring materials (from left to right or

vice versa

9. The softness of the child, agility, and coordination in the execution of movements
motors.
10. The child's ability to separate the movements of one part of the body from
another

11. The strangeness of the child or the hyperactivity before, during, or after
perform a task

12.The child's feelings about his performance (after carrying out a

specific task, the boy smiles with pride at his achievement
 INTERPRETATION OF THE PDMS-2 RESULTS (CHAPTER 4)

In this chapter, we discuss how to record, analyze, and interpret the scores.

of the PDMS-2. Specifically the topics related to a) completing the form of

Profile/Summary, b) test scores and their interpretation, c) what is the set of

medidas, d) cuales son las medidas de las subpruebas, e) discrepancia en el manejo

from the analysis, f) caution in interpreting the test results, g) use of

Motor Activities Program, and h) share the results of the test.

FORM TO COMPLETE THE PROFILE/SUMMARY

The space is provided in the form of Profile/Summary, to specify the

relevant information about the student and the examiner, recording the

test results, showing the results graphically, and indicating the

submission of information and recommendations. An example of how to fill out the form

The Profile/Summary is located in Figure 4.1.

SECTION 1: IDENTIFICATION OF INFORMATION

In section 1 (top part) of the Profile/Summary Form there is space for

record relevant information about when the child has been examined and when
the examiner is conducting the test. As expected, this information includes

name of the examined

The exact age of the examined person is determined by subtracting the date of birth from the

date on which he or she was examined. For example, considering that Juan was born

on June 6, 1998 and was examined on November 16, 1999 then:

Test Date: Año (99) Mes (11) Día (16)

Fecha de Nacimiento: Año (98) Mes (6) Día (6)

Chronological Age: 1 5 10

So Juan is 1 year 5 months and 10 days old.

Sometimes one has to add 1 year (12 months) or 1 month (30 days) extra for the

correct subtraction. For example, in Figure 4.1 it can be seen that Tim was born in November.

17 of 1997 and was examined on November 16, 1999:

Date of the test: Año (99) Mes (11) Día (16)

Fecha de Naciminiento: Año (97) Mes (11) Día (17)

Because 17 cannot be subtracted from 16, then 1 month (30 days) is added.

column of the month that is next to it and adds to the 16 days. So the date for

the proof now is 99-10-46:

Test Date: Año (99) Mes (10) Día (46)

Fecha de Nacimientpo: Año (97) Mes (11) Dia (17)

However, because 11 months cannot be subtracted from 10 months, 12 months (1 year) are

Add from the column next to it. The test date is going to be 98-22-46.

A simple subtraction is applied and Tim's age is 1 year 11 months and 29 days.

Fecha de la Prueba: Año (98) Mes (22) Día (46)

Fecha de Nacimiento: Año (97) Mes (11) Día (17)

Chronological Age: 1 11 29

For the purposes of using the normative tables, do not round Tim's age.

up. Tim is 1 year and 11 months old and not 2 years and 0 months. If the day is less than

30 is then discarded.

When examining premature children, an extra step is added to calculate their age.

After the chronological age has been determined, an adjustment is made for being

premature. Write the number of months and days that the child was premature in the line

Adjustment Premature. If you don't know the days, just use the months. After

the premature figure of the child's Chronological Age to determine age

correct premature. Suppose, for example, that Tim was born 6 weeks premature. In the

The following calculation adjusts, and Tim's correct age is 1 year and 10 months.

Fecha de la Prueba: Año (98) Mes (22) Día (46)

Fecha de Nacimiento: Año (97) Mes (11) Día (17)

Chronological Age: 1 11 29

Premature Adjustment: -1 -14

 Correct Age 1 10 15

The early adjustment is only used if the children are under 24 months of age.

After the child has reached the age of 24 months, the premature adjustment

it is not used.

Finally, the child's age is converted to months to multiply the number of years.

for 12 adding the number of months. Age in months is used to determine

the scoring information.

SECTION 2: SCORE RECORDING

In section 2, the examiner records the child's raw score, percentiles, and age.

equivalent and the standard score for each subtest in the respective spaces.

The raw scores are recorded first. The equivalent age that corresponds to

The raw scores are found in Appendix C and are recorded immediately.

These are followed by the percentiles and the standard scores, which are located

in the normative tables of Appendix A. A complete description of age

equivalent, the percentiles and the standard scores are provided later

in this chapter.

For example, Tim scored 94 points on the Locomotion subtest (Figure 4.1). This

score is converted to an equivalent age of 20 months (See Appendix C). Because the

he is 22 months old (adjusted), the examiner refers to Table A.23 in the

Appendix A to transform the raw score of 94 into a percentile of 25 and a score

standard of 8. Each of these scores is recorded in Section 2. Note that the

Standard scores must be recorded twice; once in one of the first two.

columns and the other in the last column, thus the quotient of the standard scores.

can be calculated.

The quotient represents the model that was used to build the test. By

example, the standard scores for Stationary, Locomotion, and Manipulation of

Objects are totaled and these values are converted to Coarse Motor Quotient (GMQ)

using Appendix B. The same procedure is used for the other two quotients,

Fine Motor Quotient (FMQ) and Total Motor Quotient (TMQ). The standard scores

appropriate ones are added and each summed value is converted into a quotient using the

table in Appendix B.

For example, to calculate the GMA for Tim, his standard score in the subtests

Stationary, Locomotion, and Object Manipulation are added and transformed.

within the GMQ consulting Appendix B. In Tim's case, the sum of the scores

the standards is 21 (6+8+7), which when transferred to the GMQ gives 81. The Total Motor Quotient

(TMQ) of Tim is formed by the sum of the standard scores in all the

subtests (6+8+7+7+6=34) and consulting the table in Appendix B the summation in the

TMQ from 78.

Sometimes, examiners need reference scores of another kind such as the

T scores and Z scores or stanine scores. The PDMS-2 provides another class of scores.

in Table 4.1. In this table, the percentile ranges are in the column of the

left. Once the child's percentile range for any subtest is

registered in the third column of Section 2, in the Profile/Summary form of the

score registration section, various standard scores can be obtained. Tim

it has a percentile rank of 9 for Stationary. Looking at Table 4.1, the 9 corresponds to

for the PDMS-2 a Ratio of 80, in a subtest score of 6, on the Curve

Normal Equivalence (NCR) at 22, in T score at 37, in Z score at -1.33 and

stanine a 2. This useful table will always enable examiners to be capable of

report the required equivalent standard scores by a local agency.

SECTION 3: PDMS-2 SCORE PROFILE

In Section 2, the test results are reported numerically; in the

Section 3, the results are presented graphically. To create the profile, the scores

Standards for the subtests and quotients are drawn in the graph. From a

At a glance, the examiner may identify some discrepancy between the scores.

traced.

SECTION 4: MAIN ITEM PROFILE

In Section 4, each child's skill has a dominant pattern. Each item

The chart is based on age in months when 50% of the normative sample

demonstrates mastery of this skill. The examiner marks on the line at

side of each item where the child has obtained 2. The examiner then shades everything

the vertical column that corresponds with the child's age in months. The profile
provides a visual of the motor skills that the child has mastered, of their

strengths or weaknesses and how he or she compares with the performance of the sample

regulation. This is a guide especially useful for the examiner when he is

writing the instructional objectives. (Table 4.1).

TEST SCORES AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

The PDMS-2 has five types of scores: raw scores, equivalent age, percentiles.

and standard scores (sometimes called score scale) for the subtests

and ratios for the compounds. These scores are the most important information

associated with the PDMS-2 of the child's performance, because its analysis, supported by

additional information about the test, the direct observation of behavior, and the

knowledge acquired from other sources will eventually result in an appropriate

diagnosis for the child's motor problem. Due to its importance, we discuss

each type of score and we provide suggestions for your own use and interpretation.

GROSS SCORES

The raw scores are the scores accumulated by a child during the subtests.

(for example, the child will receive 2, 1, or 0 for each item). Because the level of difficulty of the

Items in different subtests vary, the raw scores have little clinical value.

For example, the fact that a child scores 10 in the gross scores of the
stationary and locomotion subtests do not necessarily mean that their

motor skills represented by the subtests should be equal. In fact, a

a raw score of 10 in two subtests could mean that the child has performed poorly in

a subtest and well in the other. The value of the raw scores is generally

limited in research purposes (for example, to make comparisons of

groups or to compute the correlation of coefficients.

AGE EQUIVALENTS

The age equivalence for tests has usually been identified in the

test content. Thus, the age equivalents associated with the tests of

reading are called 'age readings', those associated with vocabulary tests

they are called 'vocabulary ages' and are associated with skill tests

mental (intelligence or aptitude tests) are called 'mental ages'.

Age equivalents for the PDMS-2 are called 'motor ages'. Appendix C

list the age equivalent of the PDMS-2 for the subtest of raw scores.

For example, a raw score of 57 in the Locomotion subtest corresponds to an equivalent.

10 months old.

The use of age equivalents has been under scrutiny recently, so much so that

the American Psychological Association (1985) among others, has advocated for

discontinue this punctuation. In fact, the organization has gone further and has encouraged

to the test publishers to stop the reports of the test scores

in age and the equivalent grades. However, the age equivalents are
currently used by many education agencies and school systems.

Additionally, parents, Individual Education Program teams, and groups of

intervention need to communicate about the child's skills using a

language that everyone can understand. Parents understand the ages. The developments

Age ranges are often used to convey information to parents of children.

small. The age equivalent scores can be transmitted to the parents for

show them that their children are making progress in certain items that are, chronologically, typical.

to advance.

Why age equivalents are a problem, it is recommended that users of

PDMS-2 removes the care associated with the age equivalents found in the

works of Aiken (1194), Anastasia and Urbina (1997), Linn and Gronlund (1995) and Salvia and

Ysseldyke (1998). We prefer to use standard scores and percentiles.

of age equivalents for reporting to parents and other professionals.

PERCENTILES

Percentiles or percentile ranks represent the values that indicate the

percentages of distribution that are equal to or less than a particular score. For example,

a percentile of 56 means that 56% of the sample standardization scored higher

or less than the examiner's score. Obviously, this interpretation is easy to

understand, making the percentiles of popular scores obtained in the

test results, the practitioners can share them with others. Note that the

the distance between two ranges of percentiles is much greater than the ranges and
more distant between the mean and the average (the 50th percentile). The percentiles are

generated for the subtests and the quotients using Appendices A and B

respectively.

STANDARD SCORES OF THE SUBTESTS

Standard scores provide the clearest indication of performance in the

subtests of the examined. Based on the distribution with a mean of 10 and a

standard deviation of 3, the standard scores of the subtests are converted

in raw scores using Tables A.1 to A.37 in Appendix A. The guidelines

For the interpretation of the standard scores of the subtests, it is shown in the

Table 4.2.

Standard scores allow examiners to make comparisons across

from the subtests. It was previously said that if a child scored 10 in gross score in

the subtests Stationary and Locomotion, the examiners would not be able to perform

interpretations based solely on raw scores. However, a score

standard of 18 for the two subtests, tells the examiner that the child scored

equally well in both measures (Very Superior, as shown in Table 4.2).

In the same way, if a child scores a standard score of 3 for Locomotion and 18

for Visual-Motor Integration, the examiner could conclude that Locomotion

could be relatively weak, while the Visual-Motor Integration was

relatively strong.
The column on the right in Table 4.2 refers to the percentage of the population that

it could be included within the categories listed in the middle column. Note that

this corresponds to a normalized distribution of the population. This column helps

the examiner to understand that more (around 50%) of the population is average and that

the scores considered Very High and Very Low are sufficiently rare to

guarantee the care. (See Table 4.2).

Compound coefficients

The most reliable scores of the PDMS-2 are the quotients. The GMQ, FMQ, and TMQ are

derived by adding the standard scores of the subtests and converting the

sum in quotients (a standard score with a mean of 100 and a deviation

standard of 15) using Appendix B. A scoring interpretation guide

compounds are located in Table 4.3.

WHAT MEASURES COMPOUND RATIO

In this section, we provide guidelines for the interpretation of the

composite quotients in terms of strengths and weaknesses of diagnosis in the

motor development. We also discussed the criteria for determining when the differences

among the quotients are large enough to be clinically interesting.

The ratios are important because they reflect the examiner's ability to
build the basics of the test. Also, because they understand much more

representative subtests than a single one, and the quotients tend to be highly

reliable.

The quotients discussed in this section refer to the underlying model of the PDMS-2.

what was described in Chapter 2. In that chapter, we noted that the development

motor can be conceptualized as gross motor skills, skills

fine motor skills and gross motor skills. The subtests of the PDMS-2 were

combined in such a way to form compounds that represent the three

constructions. Thus, three quotients that are generated are reflected at the level of

student and are incorporated into the PDMS-2. These ratios indicate the ability of

child in reference to gross, fine, and total motor skills.

COARSE MOTOR COEFFICIENT

The GMQ is derived from the standard scores of 3 subtests for children under

from 1 year (Reflexes, Stationary and Locomotion) and three subtests for children between 1 and

5 years old (Stationary, Locomotion, and Object Manipulation). The GMQ measures

the child's gross motor development - that is, the ability to use the muscular system and

react to changes in the environment, take a stable stance when not

is moving, moving from one place to another, to catch, throw and kick the ball. The scores

highs in the GMQ are obtained by children who have developed very well the

gross motor skills. These children would be above average in

balance and movement skills. It is likely that children will be described

as agile, well-coordinated, and elegant in their movements, The low scores are

obtained by those who have skills and weak movements. These children

they may have difficulty learning to crawl, walk, and run. The deficit in the

gross motor skills can be mild and the child's movements can be

described as clumsy, uncoordinated, or inefficient. A more severe problem of

these skills can limit the child from using their legs to such an extent that

I need assistance to get from one place to another.

Fine Motor Quotient

The FMQ is derived from the standard scores of two subtests for all

children (Grasping and Visual-Motor Integration). The FMQ measures fine motor development.

of the child, that is, the ability to use their fingers, hands, and some extension of the

arms to grab objects, stack blocks, draw and manipulate objects. The scores

high scores in the FMQ are achieved by children with good fine motor skills

developed. These children would have above-average skills such as:

picking up small objects, drawing figures and hanging decorations/small beads on a

string. They are described as good with their hands. Low scores are obtained.

for children with weaknesses in grasping skills and visual-motor integration. They

they have difficulties learning to pick up objects, drawing designs and using

hand tools. The deficit in fine motor skills can be mild and the

children's skills are described as immature or inefficient. Some children with

Very severe problems would require special utensils for them to be able to eat.

same.

TOTAL MOTOR COGNITION

The TMQ includes the scores of the ratios of two compounds, the Motor Quotient.

Thick and the Fine Motor Quotient, for all children. This is probably the best.

estimated about all motor skills.

WHAT DO THE SUBTESTS MEASURE

A subtest is built to introduce itself into the content of a specific area.

with great mastery. For example, the locomotion test measures the child's ability

to move from one place to another. However, gross motor skills are

understood in many skills, in which locomotion is one of them.

Although this ability shows some information about people, a better

the index of gross motor skills would be the Gross Motor Quotient, because

It contains three subtests and represents many skills. Each one of the

subtests measure a different skill. In other words, the examiner can have more

security in the interpretation of the scores of the quotients being assessed

individually the scores of the subtests.

For this reason, the set of scores should be given greater credibility and attention than the

scores of the subtests. That is, the assessment of performance in the subtest.

it continues to be useful in generating hypotheses about why a person did it

good or bad, but decisions about the diagnosis should be based primarily

in the interpretation of the set of values.

The conclusions of the subtests should only be interpreted in terms of

specific content and in the skills measured. The contents of the

subtests are:

Reflexes: Measure the child's automatic reaction to environmental events.

Stationary: Measures the child's ability to maintain control of their body within

of its center of gravity and maintaining balance.

Locomotion: Measures the child's ability to transport their body from one point to another.

support to another.

Object Manipulation: It measures the child's ability to throw, catch, and kick the ball.

Grasping: Measures the child's ability to use their hands and fingers.

Visual-Motor Integration: It measures the child's ability to integrate and use their

visual perceptual skills in the execution of complex tasks

hand-eye coordination.
 PRECAUTIONS FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

This manual presents a method to evaluate motor skills.

Although this test was carefully designed, widely standardized and had

An extensive investigation, there were limitations that must be considered.

RELIABILITY OF THE TEST: A CAUSE FOR CONCERN

The fact that an inherent error of the test cannot be fully extracted from

a measuring instrument is a reason to be attentive to the interpretation of the

test results; Even the most reliable tests have levels

"acceptable" levels of reliability contain an alarming number of errors.

Anastasi and Urbina (1997) described a method for estimating the 'variance.'

"true" in the test, which is based on the sharing of mistakes

associated with the sampling time, sampling content, and a difference between

results. Assuming that a particular test is reliable at an acceptable low level

(e.g. .80) in the three sources of error, the true variance of the test is only 40%.

This 'acceptable' from the test currently has more errors than the variance.

true. Certainly, considerable attention is required in such circumstances.

Examiners should be very cautious in the interpretation of the

results, even in tests that have a very high level of reliability, since these
they still have significant errors. For example, a test with almost a reliability

Perfect (e.g., .95) in the three sources of error still contains a 15% error.

Therefore, the results of the tests, especially when they are used to make

judgments about individuals must almost always be handled carefully. The

results based on tests having reliabilities lower than .80 should be

considered with great caution or not used at all. In each case, the diagnoses and

hypotheses supported by the test information must be supported by others

observations.

THE TESTS DO NOT DIAGNOSE

Also often, examiners forget the sentence 'the evidence does not

"they diagnose, people do it" and base their diagnosis exclusively on the

test results. The test results are merely

observations, not diagnoses. They specify a level of performance over time.

given under a particular situation, but they do not tell the examiner why a person

he or she acted as he or she did.

The questions concerning the reasons for the test performance are the essence.

of the diagnosis and can only be resolved by a discerning and competent examiner.

The results of the tests contribute greatly to the diagnosis, but in the end, the

practical diagnostics are based on clinical skills and experience of the

examiner. The test results are only aids in clinical judgments.

Many factors can combine to cause a certain

performance on the test. For example, serious health issues could limit the

motor experiences of the child and it could affect the child's performance in the test,

in such a way that obtaining certain scores would practically be the same

obtained by individuals diagnosed with mild motor delays or even paralysis

cerebral. The examiner is responsible for forming hypotheses about the

cause of the problem and for the case diagnosis. In any instance, the diagnosis

it could be health conditions, restricted early experiences, mental retardation, or

family problems. To carry out these assessments, the examiner requires information

that goes beyond just the information of the test results.

USING THE MOTOR ACTIVITIES PROGRAM OF THE PDMS-2

The Motor Activities Program is the instruction and treatment program for

PDMS-2. It is organized into units that are specifically aimed at the

skills assessed in each subtest of the PDMS-2. Each unit includes a series

of activities. Each activity includes the following: Instructional objectives or points of

reference

related as they occur in a natural environment, elements for

focus on the direction of the skill(s), and suggestions to assist the examiner

in the development of an appropriate Individualized Family Service Plan and a

Individualized Education Program and intervention generation

detailed instruction. The instruction of strategies described in the program

they include functional tasks that are developed properly. As long as it is

Possible, these strategies were designed to be incorporated into the daily routine.

familiar. Additionally, the case study provides examples for therapists or others

early age specialists models in the design of interventions.

SHARING THE TEST RESULTS

The test results must be shared with responsible individuals

eligible to receive such information. The examiner must always consider three

aspects when sharing the results of the PDMS-2:

Before any presentation, a complete understanding of the

purposes, contents, and construction of the PDMS-2. The Examiner's Manual must

to be available when the results are presented to people who are not

familiar with the test. The section 'Uses of the PDMS-2' in Chapter 1 should

of special interest, such as the information in Chapter 5 to 7 concerning

normative statistics, reliability and validity.

When the test scores are shared, they should be

accompanied by a personal interpretation from the examiner regarding a) their

a) meaning, b) possible alternative interpretations, c) reports from other works of

diagnosis and how they relate to the PDMS-2, d) suggestions for changes
instructional if necessary, and e) recommendations for future applications that

They could be appropriate. All these points must be discussed before making.

final recommendations to parents or other professionals.

Each effort must be to translate the results of the PDMS-2 into a language

appropriate for the person with whom the results will be shared. The

examiners should reconsider using the terminology of motor development or of the

therapy when it is not needed.

 RELIABILITY OF THE TEST (CHAPTER 6)

The concept of reliability refers to the consistency with which an instrument

measurement (test, scale, a clock) estimates various attributes of something. It is a key

important in measurement theory because it is related to practice

useless of all types of measurement systems. Weight, time, height, distance,

texture, realization, feelings or abilities that are measured, ideas about it

The reliability of the measurement is important and must be considered.

Regarding the measurement of motor skills, the tests that have

an adequate reliability will measure the 'truth' (e.g., they will have more or less with

the same scores over periods of time and across different

examiners). Tests that have very little reliability will be marked.

differences between scores when applied at different times or are

applied by different people. Obviously, reliability has considerable

relevance when tests are used to identify individuals with

motor problems, to determine the eligibility for special services and

to diagnose specific difficulties.

When an examiner uses an unreliable test, a child can be tested.

in one day and being "diagnosed" with a particular deficiency. The child can
to be tested again the next day, only to find that the problem has

"disappeared." Of course, the problem really didn't disappear; it might not

there could have been the first time. It could have been a false positive statistic.

produced by the inadequate reliability of the test.

It is worth mentioning that the use of an unreliable test can produce considerable

difficulties for the examiners who, based on an examination

initial, has informed other professionals about the presence and severity

from the 'problems', he has planned corrective programs for individuals and

scheduled interviews with the parents. The examiners can reduce

considerably the chances of finding difficulties, selecting

tests that have good reliability, since those tests have small

errors associated with your scores.

The study of the reliability of the test focuses on estimating the amount

of errors associated with the scores. When a variance of error is

investigated, the results are usually reported in terms of the

reliability coefficient, a specific common correlation coefficient. For

a test like the PDMS-2 to be considered minimally reliable, the

the reliability of the coefficients should be approximately or exceed .80 in magnitude;

coefficients of .90 or above to be considered the most desirable (Aiken,

1994; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1998). The status of

PDMS-2, from the subtests and the composite relative scores for the three

sources of error variance (e.g. sample content, sampling time and

The differences in punctuation marks are discussed in this chapter.

 SAMPLE CONTENT

The error associated with the sample content reflects the degree of

homogeneity among the items of a test or subtest. Because the purpose

the purpose of the test is to measure certain characteristics, skills, or content the more they

relate the items to each other, the error in the test will be smaller. If the

items have not been related to each other, it is most likely that they were

measuring different qualities and the amount of error of the test would be good

due to the sampling content.

The reliability of the internal consistency of the items across all subtests of the

PDMS-2 was investigated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient (1951). The

scores from the entire normative sample were used for these analyses. The

The internal coherence of the compound quotients is derived from the formula used.

by Guilford (1954, p. 393) designed for this purpose. The alpha coefficients of

The subtests and compounds of the PDMS-2 are shown in Table 6.1.

standard error of measurement (SEMs) for the standard scores

The subtests and composite scores are shown in Table 6.2.

According to Table 6.1, 100% of the alphas for the subtests of the PDMS-2

70% reach .70; 90% reach .80, of the acceptable reliability criterion; and 80% reach
.90, the optimal level. The alpha coefficients for the PDMS-2 are much higher.

large, with all 18 exceeding .90 in magnitude.

The Alphas in Table 6.1 were averaged using the method of

Transformation-Z for the average correlation coefficients. The alphas

averages are in the far right column of the table. The figures

in the column they show the total reliability of the subtests of the PDMS-2 and the

compounds despite the age. The inspection of the average alpha in the column

indicates that all "but one of the sub-tests" have an alpha coefficient of .90 or

above and they vary in a range from .89 to .96. The average alpha for the

.96 and .97 were the quotients.

The SEMs in Table 6.2 provides a confidence interval that surrounds a

specific score of the test. For example, consider the score of the Quotient

Total Motor of Team 0.78. Why is the SEM associated 3 (see Table 6.2 for

From 12 to 23 months, we can say with 68% confidence that the

Tim's true results are within a range of 75 to 81, 95%

the confidence is between 72 and 84 (1.96 x 3), and 99% confidence that it is between

71 and 85 (2.58 x 3). As is obvious, the smaller the SEM, the more confidence one has.

you can have with the test results. The inspection of Table 6.2

shows that the SEMs for the subtests and quotients of the PDMS-2 are

uniformly low, which supports a high degree of reliability of the test

associated with the PDMS-2 scores.

One cannot always assume this, because the reliability of the test for a

general population, it can be equally reliable for each subgroup with that

population. Therefore, these people who construct the tests must

demonstrate that their tests are more reliable for subgroups, especially in

subgroups that can be tested for race, ethnicity, disability, or

linguistic differences that could show a bias in the tests. The Alphas for

seven selected subgroups in the normative sample are reported in the

Table 6.3. The studied subgroups are Men, Women, Euro-Americans,

African Americans, Hispanic Americans, students diagnosed with

language-speech disorders and students with physical disorders. The

subgroups represent a wide spectrum of identifiable groups in the

population of the United States, covering gender, race, ethnicity, and categories of

disabilities. The large alpha in Table 6.3 demonstrates that the PDMS-2 is

practically equally reliable for all the researched subgroups and supports the

idea that the test has little or no bias relative to these groups.

SAMPLING TIME

The moment of error in the sampling time refers to the extent to which the

the child's performance in the test is constant over time and is usually

estimated by the test-retest method. In this procedure, the test is given to

a group of children, within a time period (1 week or less) is allowed

approve and the same children are tested again. Then the results of

both tests are compared. The reliability established over time of the

PDMS-2 was investigated using the test-retest method. The first group of children

from 2 to 11 months (n=20), were from Austin, Texas. The second group of 12

up to 17 months (n=30) were from Nacogdoches, Texas.

The raw scores for the two tests were converted into scores.

standards and ratios to control any effect of age for the

sample. The values were correlated and the resulting coefficients were

They show in Table 6.4, along with the means and the standard deviation for

each test. As can be seen, these values are of sufficient magnitude

to allow for trust in the test scores and stability in the

time.

INTER SCORE DIFFERENCES

A third type of reliability refers to the amount of error in the test for

examine the variability of the score. An unreliable score is

usually the result of a clear mistake or inappropriate applications of the

standard scoring criteria by the examiner. The error score

can be significantly reduced by the availability of the

clear management procedures, detailed instructions, scores

that govern and opportunities for practice in punctuation.

However, the builders of the tests should demonstrate

Statistically, the amount of error in their tests for the different

scores. To do this, Anastasi and Urbina (1997) recommended that two

Trained individuals will score a set of tests independently.

The correlation between the annotators is a relational index agreement.

In the case of PDMS-2, two staff members in PRO-ED from the department of

independent research recorded a set of 30 protocols

completed for 3 and 11 months of age and a set of 30 protocols

completed for 15 to 36 months of age, to make a total of 60

completed protocols. The protocols were randomly selected from a

normative sample. The raw scores were converted to standardized scores,

correlated and reported by age intervals. The size of the

resulting coefficients are in the column of Table 6.5 of the Differents

Punctuation marks, providing compelling evidence of the reliability of the

test scores.

SUMMARY OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESULTS

The total reliability of the PDMS-2 is summarized in Table 6.5. The content of this

table shows the relative status of the test for Anastasia and Urbina (1997) three

sources of error in the test: content, time, and score. The coefficients

The results from these reports are shown in previous sections of this chapter.

As can be seen, the visualization of the figures in the table, the PDMS-2

evidences a high degree of reliability. This reliability is consistently high at

through all three types of reliability. The magnitude of these coefficients

suggests that the PDMS-2 has a small testing error and the users

They can trust the results.

 VALIDATION OF TEST RESULTS

In basic terms, tests are said to be valid if they do what

supposedly they must do. Unfortunately, it is much easier to define the

validate that conclusively demonstrating that the evidence is valid.

Partly because validity is more of a reason than an absolute concept. The

The validity of the test varies according to the purpose of using the results and the

types of people examined. Therefore, the validity of the test must be

investigated over and over until having a large research base

accumulated. The analysis and interpretation of the results are necessary beforehand.

to give validity status to the test and they can be recognized with some degree

certainly. Consequently, the study of the validity of the test is a

ongoing process.

Many current authors of books on education and psychological measurement- by

example, Aiken (1994), Anastasi and Urbina (1997), Linn and Gronlund (1995), Salvia

Y Ysseldyke (1998) and Wallace, Larsen, and Elksnin (1992) suggest that groups

those who develop the tests must provide evidence of the last three

tipos de validéz: descripción de contenido, criterio de predicción y construcción

of identification. The particular terms used are from Anastasi and Urbina

(1997). Other sources refer to content validity, criterion validity

related and validity of construction. Although some terms differ, the

the represented concepts are identical.

DESCRIPTION OF VALIDITY CONTENT

The procedures in the description of the validity content involve the

systematic examination of the test content to determine if it covers

a representative sample of the main behavior measured" (Anastasi and

Urbina, 1997 page 114-115). Obviously, this kind of validity has to be

built in the test while the subtests are conceptualized and

the items constructed. These that build the tests, usually

they address the validity of the content by showing that the chosen skills

to be measured, they are consistent with current knowledge about a

specific area. They also show that the items can be saved

statistically.

The three demonstrations of content validity are offered in Scales of

Peabody Motor Development Scale-Second Edition (PDMS-2). First, the logic that

underlies the selection of items and the choice of composite scores of the

PDMS-2 are described. Second, the validity of the items is ultimately

supported by the result of the conventional item analysis procedure and the

Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis used to select items.

during the stages of development and construction of the test. Third,

the validation of the items is reinforced by the functional analysis of the results
differentials of the item, used to show the absence of bias in the items of

the test.

UNDERLYING LOGIC IN THE SELECTION OF ITEMS, SUBTESTS AND

COMPOUNDS

This section begins with a brief discussion of the logic underlying the

PDMS-2 and the criteria used for scoring each item. This is followed by

a verification of the content of each subtest and finally the reason

providing the composite scores.

THE REASON. The logic underlying the development of the PDMS-2 was presented in the

Chapter 1. It was said that when the original version of the PDMS-2 was developed,

we do not adhere to a specific theoretical perspective; rather, we

adopted a development framework and items and tests were built based on it

work of the current developers. The contributions of Shirley (1931),

McGraw (1939), Gesell (1940), Bayley (1969), and Harrow (1972) had greater

impact understanding the motor development of very young children and the design of

the items used in the PDMS-2.

In addition to the influence of the early developers, research on

the effects of interventions in the development of motor skills by Folio

(1975), DuBose and Folio (1977), Harris (1981), Jenkins, Fewell and Harris (1983),
Campbell and Stewart (1986), Boucher and Doescher (1992), and Block and Davis (1996)

they provided more detail in the description of skill development

motorcycles. These detailed descriptions allowed for writing more about the criteria

specific used in the PDMS-2. Later on, the researchers reported the

results of the motor interventions implemented by teachers and

therapists. These results helped us refine the procedures of

management, identify the additional skills to be included in the

test and identify a test environment with more ecological validity.

SUBTESTS. The content of the PDMS-2 is also verified by examining

A Taxonomy of the Psychomotor Domain by Harrow (1972). Within this,

Harrow classified motor development into a hierarchical sequence starting

with a reflective behavior and progressing through movements

basic fundamentals, perceptual skills, physical skills and movements

qualified. Harrow defines this as:

Reflections - Includes reactions to situations, balance, and correction of reactions.

and reflexes of grabbing. Although it is included in the PDMS-2, this subtest does not

it attempts to be a comprehensive measure of behavior and is used in children

under 1 year.
Stationary - Includes movements of limbs and trunk, bending,

extending, stopping, and twisting.

Locomotion - Includes movements of moving from one place to another, such as

crawling, dragging, running, jumping, climbing, spinning.

Object Manipulation - includes coordinated motor skills that require

incorporation and movement like catching, bouncing, and kicking the ball.

Holding - Includes in the handling of movements, movements of

extremities that are combined with vision, as volunteers to achieve

something, picking up and dropping toys or other objects.

Visual Motor Integration - Includes skill in manipulative abilities, such as

block manipulation, cups, drawing instruments and interpretation of a

visual stimulus in coordination with hand movement.

COMPOSITE SCORES. The PDMS-2 separates motor development into

gross and fine skills. Our experience has shown that children

they have normal motor skills when using the long muscles
but serious problems when using the small muscles. Also, the therapists

distinguish these skills. For example, occupational therapists

They usually focus on issues with fine motor skills and therapists.

physicists in problems with gross skills. The separate tests of the

gross and fine motor skills, allows examiners to identify the

needs and the links of skills that are deficient.

The Total Motor Quotient allows the examiner to summarize all skills.

children's motors. Through the combination of the composite scores of

both skills, the examiner has an estimated reliability of the

motor skills of the child.

ITEM ANALYSIS. In previous sections, evidence was provided

qualitative validity of the content of the PDMS-2. In this section, it

provides quantitative evidence for the content validity up to the analysis

conventional item and the item response theory model.

CONVENTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE ITEM. We report the results.

traditional, the time-tested procedures used for selection

good items (validity). These procedures focus on the study and on the

difficulty of the item discrimination power. The item discrimination power.

of discrimination or validity of the item) refers to the 'degree to which an item is

correctly differentiable among the test takers, which is

designed to measure behavior" (Anastasi and Urbina, 1997 p. 179). The

The item discrimination index is currently a correlation coefficient.

what represents the relationship of a particular item and the other items in the test.

More than 50 different item discrimination indices have been developed.

to use them in the construction of tests. Regarding the selection of

an appropriate index, Anastasi and Urbina (1997), Guilford and Fruchter (1978), and

Osterhof (1976) observed that, for many purposes, it does not matter that

coefficient is used, as all of them yield similar results.

In the past, test developers preferred the biserial point index.

(probably because it was very easy to calculate). Since the development of

high-speed computers, however, the total score of the item in the index

of Pearson correlation, has become very popular and was the one we

we use to select items.

Ebel (1972) and Pyrczak (1973) suggested that discrimination indices of .35

or older are acceptable; Anastasi and Urbina (1997) and Garret (1965) pointed out

that indices as low as .20 were correct in some circumstances. The

value of using the discrimination index to select good items

it cannot be exaggerated. A test composed of many items that has

low discrimination indices, it will have low reliability and little

probability of validity.

To demonstrate that the characteristics of the items of the PDMS-2 were

satisfactory, an analysis of an item was conducted using the entire normative sample
as subjects. The results of the item discrimination coefficients

are shown in Table 7.1 for all subtests. According to statisticians, in

these tables only include items that have some variance. In the

on average, the test items meet the previously established requirements

described and provides evidence of content validity.

ITEM RESPONSE THEORY MODEL. In recent years, the models

Item Response Theory (IRT) has increased to develop the

tests (Hambleton and Swaminathan, 1985). The parameters of the models of

IRT are available corresponding to traditional statistics of the

described items. The intersection item, also known as localization of

item or threshold, corresponds to the difficulty of analyzing the items

conventional. The pending item corresponds to discrimination.

The information gathered from the conventional analysis of the item and the procedures

from the IRT model, were used to select the items of the PDMS-2.

Based on item discrimination and statistical difficulties, the

corresponding parameters in the IRT models and an examination of the item

and the test information, the unsatisfactory items were deleted from the

test (those who did not meet the criteria described above). The

"good" items (those that met the item discrimination and the criterion

of difficulty) were arranged in an order from easy to hard and made up the

final version of the test.

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENTIAL ITEM

The item analysis techniques previously described are traditional and

popular. However, no matter how good these techniques are for

show what the items do in the tests, in fact, it includes the variance in

motor skills are insufficient. Camilli and Shepard (1994) recommended

that the test developers would go further and employ techniques to

detect the biases of the items (Use techniques to identify which items provide

more advantages in one group than in another group). To study the items

biased in the PDMS-2, we used the logistic regression procedure to

the functional detection of the differential item (DIF) introduced in 1990 by

Swaminathan and Rogers.

The logistic regression procedure for the detection of DIF is

particularly important because it provides a method to do

comparisons between groups, when the demonstration probabilities of the

main item for the groups, they are different in the levels of variation of

skills (Mellenberg, 1983). The strategy used in this technique is to compare

the total model (ability, group membership, and the interaction between the two)

with the restricted model (skill only) to determine if the total model

provides a significantly better solution. If the overall model fails to

provide this solution that the restricted model, then the differences

among the groups regarding the item are the best explanation for the sole ability. In
In other words, if the overall model is not significantly better at predicting the

performance in the item that the restricted model, then, the item is the

measurement in the differences of ability and it does not seem to be influenced by the

group membership (The item is not biased).

Logistic regression, when used in IDF detection, is a technique.

of regression in which the dependent variable, the item, is dichotomous.

scored (domain item = 1 and non-domain item = 0). For the purposes of this

Analysis of the information from the entire sample was rescored. The children who every time

They secured the criterion, obtaining 1 and 0 for the other items. The total model.

it consists of the estimated coefficients for skill (test score),

member of the group (man/woman), and the interrelation between the two.

The restricted model consists of an estimated coefficient for a single ability.

In many cases, skill is estimated from a correct number of

answers that the examinee achieved in the test. Because the coefficients in

Logistic regression is estimated by the maximum likelihood method, the

hypothesis comparison model is tested using probability

This statistic has a chi-square distribution with 2 degrees.

of freedom. For our purposes, alpha is set at .001. The numbers of

the items for each comparison that were found to be significant

At the .001 confidence level, they are listed in Table 7.2. The items were not

removed from the final PDMS-2 because the item's content was suspicious.

that the group of children to whom the Reflex subtest was administered was

small, the logistic regression analysis was not applied.

 VALIDITY OF PREDICTION CRITERION

In the latest edition of this book, Anastasi and Urbina (1997) refer to the

validity of the prediction criterion instead of the validity of the related criterion. The

the definition for the new term is the same as the one used previously for the

validation of the related criterion, namely "The validation procedures of

prediction criteria indicate the effectiveness of a test in predicting the

performance of individuals in specific activities” (p. 118). They affirm that

the performance in the test is marked by a criterion that can be a

direct or indirect measure for which it was designed to predict. Therefore, if

is it really valid, a test like the PDMS-2 that claims to measure the

motor development should correlate with other tests that are also

known to be related to these skills.

Correlations can be concurrent or predictive depending on the

amount of time elapsed between the application of the test criterion and the

test that is being validated. For example, a correlation between the PDMS-2 and

The Mullen Scales of Early Learning AGS Edition (MSEL:A)

(Mullen, 1995) could be called concurrent if one of the tests had been

applied immediately after the other. Anastasi and Urbina (1997) pointed out

that, for certain uses of the tests, concurrent validation is the most type
appropriate validation criterion for prediction. In this section, the results

a number of studies are discussed in terms of their relationship with the

validity criterion of the PDMS-2 prediction.

Two studies of the criterion validity of the PDMS-2 were conducted.

using information obtained from the regulatory sample. In all cases, the

raw scores of the subtests were converted to standard scores and

quotients. The resulting coefficients were corrected by both to have

consider the attenuation for any lack of reliability in the measurement of the criterion

and the restricted range, where appropriate (see Guilford and Frchter, 1978 for

a discussion of these corrections).

For the first study of the validity of prediction criterion, the scores of the

PDMS-2 were correlated with the Motor Development Scales

Peabody first edition. The GMQ and the FMQ of the PDMS-2 were correlated.

with the coarse and fine motor compounds of the PDMS. Both tests were

applied on the same day to 30 children from Hollins College in Virginia. The range of

age was 1 month to 11 months and 63% were men; 2 participants were

African Americans and the rest Euro-Americans.

As can be seen in Table 7.3, the correlation coefficients between the

PDMS-2 and PDMS are in a very high range. In particular, the ratios of the

PDMS-2 and PDMS of the Fine and Coarse Engine Ratios exceeded .80 and

are high enough to support the equivalence of the tests. The

correlations provide support for the validity of the PDMS-2 scores.

In the second study of the criterion validity of prediction, the scores of the

PDMS-2 were correlated with the Early Learning Scales of

Mullen: AGS Edition (MSEL:A) (Mullen, 1995). The six subtests and the three

PDMS-2 compounds were correlated with MSEL: To the scales

fine and coarse motors. Both tests were applied on the same day to 29

children in Evansville, Indiana. The age range of the children was from 2 months to 66

months and 62% were men; one participant was African American and the rest

Euro-Americans.

As can be seen in Table 7.4, the correlation coefficients between the

PDMS-2 and MSEL:A are in the moderate and very high range. The

correlations provide support for the validity of the PDMS-2. In particular, the

relationships of the PDMS-2 and the MSEL:A of Fine and Gross Motor Quotients

They exceeded .80 and are high enough to support the equivalence of the

tests.

VALIDITY OF CONSTRUCTION IDENTIFICATION

The validity of the construction identification of a test is the measure of

That the test can measure a theoretical construction or trait” (Anastasi and Urbina,

1977, p. 126). As such, it relates to the degree to which the traits of the

tests can be identified and it is the degree to which these traits reflect the

theoretical model on which the test is based. Linn and Gronlund (1995) offered
a three-step procedure for demonstrating this kind of validity.

First, several alleged constructions that it accounts for the test are

identified. Second, the generated hypotheses are based on the

identified constructions. Third, the hypotheses are verified by logic or

empirical methods. Three basic constructs believe that underlie the PDMS-

2 and four verifiable questions are discussed in the rest of the chapter.

1. Why were the subtests of the PDMS-2 built to measure the

gross and fine motor skills, a factor of analysis of the

subtests should confirm the relationship between the subtests and these

constructions.

2. Why motor skills are developed in nature,

performance on the PDMS-2 should be strongly correlated with the

chronological age.

3.Why in the measured skills of the PDMS-2, its results should

differentiate between groups of people known for being average and

expected to be below average in motor skills.

4. Because the items of a particular subtest measure similar traits, the

items from each subtest should be highly correlated with the

total score of the subtest.

DIFFERENTIATION OF AGE

The raw score means a standard deviation for the subscores in the

PDMS-2 at six-year age intervals are presented in Table 7.5.

The coefficients showing the relationship are also found in the table.

age with performance in the subtests. The content of the table demonstrates

that all subtests in the PDMS-2 are strongly related to the

age at which their socks become larger as the children grow. This

the observation is verified by the coefficients in the bottom column of the table,

that, according to the interpretation rule of MacEachron (1982), are in a

very high range.

These coefficients are highly sufficient to demonstrate natural development.

of the content of the subtests. Because the relationship with age is a

well-known characteristic of motor skills, the information

found in this table supports the validity of the construction of the PDMS-2.

GROUP DIFFERENTIATION

One way to establish the validity of the test is by studying the

performance of different groups of people in the tests. Each result of

the groups should make sense, taking into account what is known about it

what the test measures and the relationships of the different groups. Thus, in the case of the

PDMS-2, a motor skills test, one might expect that individuals

with disabilities, affecting motor skills, would do less than the

individuals who do not show disabilities.

The average of the standard scores for the total sample used in the

The PDMS-2 norm and the seven subgroups are listed in Table 7.6. It included 2

groups (Men and Women). Three ethnic groups (Euro-Americans,

Afro-Americans and Hispanic-Americans), and two groups with disabilities (children

with physical disabilities and children diagnosed with mental retardation.

The average of the standard scores in the table supports the validity of

identification of the construction of the PDMS-2. The GMQ, FMQ, and TMQ for each

gender and ethnic group are within the normal range. The scores obtained

for the subgroups with disabilities, they are also consistent with the

expectations; that is, one could assume that children with disabilities

physicals should have consistent difficulties in the measurements of development

motor, and children with mental retardation should also have scores

lower than average. The scores obtained by the subgroups with

disabilities, are what one might expect.

VALIDITY OF THE ITEM

Guilford and Fruchter (1978) noted that information about the validity of

the construction of the test can be obtained by correlating performance

in the items with the total score obtained in the test. (The procedure is

also used in the early stages of test construction for

select the items that have good discriminatory power). The strong

evidence in the validity of the PDMS-2 is found in the discrimination of the

powers reported in Table 7.1. The test having very little validity of

construction identification would not be composed of items with coefficients

of the size reported in this table.

SUMMARY OF THE VALIDITY OF THE RESULTS

Based on the information provided in this chapter, one could conclude

that the PDMS-2 is a valid measure for motor skills.

examiners can use the PDMS-2 with confidence, especially when

They are evaluating individuals suspected of having motor problems.

We encourage professionals to continue the study of the test.

using different samples, statistical procedures, and measurements

related. We also encourage researchers to share the results

with us, so your conclusions can be included in sub editions.

sequences from the manual. The accumulation of information search will help in

the future to clarify the validity of the PDMS-2 and will provide guidelines

for future revisions of the test.