- Email: [email protected]
Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
JSAMS-979; No. of Pages 5
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsams
Original research
Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children Lisa M. Barnett a,∗ , Nicola D. Ridgers b , Avigdor Zask c,d,e , Jo Salmon b a
School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Australia Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition, Deakin University, Australia Health Promotion Unit, Northern New South Wales Local Health District, Australia d School of Public Health, University Centre for Rural Health, North Coast. The University of Sydney, Australia e School of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Australia b c
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 1 May 2013 Received in revised form 4 September 2013 Accepted 20 December 2013 Available online xxx Keywords: Child Movement skill Object control Locomotor Manipulative skills
a b s t r a c t Objectives: To determine reliability and face validity of an instrument to assess young children’s perceived fundamental movement skill competence. Design: Validation and reliability study. Methods: A pictorial instrument based on the Test Gross Motor Development-2 assessed perceived locomotor (six skills) and object control (six skills) competence using the format and item structure from the physical competence subscale of the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children. Sample 1 completed object control items in May (n = 32) and locomotor items in October 2012 (n = 23) at two time points seven days apart. Children were asked at the end of the test–retest their understanding of what was happening in each picture to determine face validity. Sample 2 (n = 58) completed 12 items in November 2012 on a single occasion to test internal reliability only. Results: Sample 1 children were aged 5–7 years (M = 6.0, SD = 0.8) at object control assessment and 5–8 years at locomotor assessment (M = 6.5, SD = 0.9). Sample 2 children were aged 6–8 years (M = 7.2, SD = 0.73). Intra-class correlations assessed in Sample 1 children were excellent for object control (intra-class correlation = 0.78), locomotor (intra-class correlation = 0.82) and all 12 skills (intra-class correlations = 0.83). Face validity was acceptable. Internal consistency was adequate in both samples for each subscale and all 12 skills (alpha range 0.60–0.81). Conclusions: This study has provided preliminary evidence for instrument reliability and face validity. This enables future alignment between the measurement of perceived and actual fundamental movement skill competence in young children. Crown Copyright © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Sports Medicine Australia. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Childhood fundamental movement skill (FMS) ability (e.g. to throw, kick and jump) is associated with physical activity1 and is a potentially important determinant of adolescent physical activity.2 However, perceptions of competence may more directly affect motivation towards physical activity than actual competence.3 Indeed, Barnett et al.4 found that perceived competence influenced the relationship between children’s actual FMS proficiency and their subsequent physical activity levels. In young children (under eight years old), Harter and Pike have published psychometric data demonstrating support for a ‘perceived competence’ construct broken down into ‘cognitive competence’ and ‘physical competence’.5 Thus the Pictorial Scale
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (L.M. Barnett).
of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children5 was designed in 1984 for children from preschool to second grade (four to eight years old) to assess physical self-perceptions in young children. It measures four domains: perceived physical and cognitive competence, and perceived peer and maternal acceptance.5 Since then, this instrument has been commonly used but whilst it assesses physical competence in terms of what could be seen as typical actions of childhood (e.g. swinging on a swing, tying shoelaces) it does not comprehensively assess (in either the kindergarten or first/second grade version) the type of physical movement skill competence that underlies sports and games in childhood and later in life. A possible limitation of current research examining associations between actual and perceived competence is the lack of an instrument to assess FMS perceived competence that matches the actual skills assessed.6,7 A valid and reliable assessment of perceived FMS competence using the same skills as tests of actual skill ability would enhance researchers’ understanding of whether children
1440-2440/$ – see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Sports Medicine Australia. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.004
Please cite this article in press as: Barnett LM, et al. Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. J Sci Med Sport (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.004
G Model JSAMS-979; No. of Pages 5
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.M. Barnett et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
2
overestimate, underestimate or accurately assess their FMS ability, which has potential to influence physical activity behavior.8 The assessment of children’s actual FMS competence usually tests a range of skills that encompass both locomotor (movement from one point to another) and object control (manipulation of an object such as a ball) skills. A commonly used assessment of children’s actual FMS performance is the Test of Gross Motor Development, which examines six locomotor and six object control skills.9 For example, in two recent reviews of motor skill interventions in children,10,11 the majority of studies used the TGMD-2 or the earlier TGMD.12 Interestingly, the author of the TGMD-29 modified the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children in 1990 to assess perceived FMS ability in 7–12 year-old children with an intellectual disability.12 At this time the TGMD-29 was not yet developed, hence eight of the 10 items in this instrument modification match the original TGMD,13 and seven items match the TGMD-2. The modified instrument showed good internal consistency (0.82),12 indicating that grouping these types of skills together (at least in that sample) makes sense, although this instrument has not been used subsequently, or tested, in a typically developing sample of children. More recently, the Children’s Perception of Motor Competence Scale (2005) was designed to assess Spanish children’s perceived motor skill competence.14 However, it does not include common object control skills such as kicking and striking and is also centred on competence specifically within physical education.14 It is important to establish the reliability and validity of new measures. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop and assess the test–retest and internal reliability and the face validity of a pictorial instrument designed to assess perceived FMS competence (specifically the object control and locomotor skills assessed in the TGMD-2) in young children.
2. Methods For both samples ethics approval was granted from the University and the schools authority; parents gave written consent and children assented. A total of thirty-two children (18 boys) were recruited as part of Sample 1. Demographic information was not collected from parents in Sample 1. Fifty-eight children (26 boys, 32 girls) were recruited from Sample 2. Two-thirds (67%) of Sample 2 respondent parents were Australian born, nine were born in other English speaking countries and the remainder were born in non-English speaking countries. Approximately two-thirds (69%) had a University degree, one quarter had a trade/apprenticeship or diploma, and the remainder had Year 10 equivalent. A pictorial instrument based on the TGMD-2 six locomotor (run, gallop, hop, leap, horizontal jump, and slide); and six object control skills (striking a stationary ball, stationary dribble, kick, catch, overhand throw, and underhand roll) was developed. Newly created subscales assessed locomotor and object control competence using the format and item structure from the physical competence subscale of the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children.5 The format and structure of the items were retained, but nearly all items (except bouncing a ball) and all illustrations were new. The name of each skill was the same as in the TGMD-2, except for: the slide, which was identified to the children as the ‘step and slide’, the horizontal jump, which was renamed ‘jumping forwards’, the strike which was termed ‘hitting a ball’ and the dribble which was termed ‘bouncing a ball’. This was to facilitate understanding of the movements depicted in the drawings for this young age group. An artist provided drawings that represented ‘poor’ and ‘good’ performances by both boys and girls for each of the 12 skills. So that children from diverse backgrounds could identify with the
illustrations, they were drawn in a cartoon format. Correct skill execution was described to the artist in terms of the components as defined by the TGMD-2 (for example bending knees to lower body in the underhand roll).9 The process of development involved the drawings being emailed to each of the authors and an expert in the field (a researcher in the area of movement skills in children) with feedback sought on whether the picture was seen to represent correct (in the case of the ‘good’ picture) and incorrect (in the case of the ‘poor’ picture) execution of the skill. Feedback was collated and given to the artist, whereupon drawings were adjusted and sent again to the authors for approval prior to being tested with children. A generic issue that the expert in the field raised, was that the pictures need to more obviously show difference between good and poor skill performances and there was a concern the differences may be subtle for this age group. For example, it was thought that in the poor catch the child should drop the ball. It was also suggested that the ball should move further away from the child in the poor picture of the bounce to show the child does not have control over the ball. These issues were addressed. Instructions for administering the instrument were developed. As per administration of the original Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children,5 skills for each subscale were ordered in a sequence so that ‘good’ competence alternated in position on the page with ‘poor’ competence. Boys received the booklet depicting boy cartoon figures and vice versa for girls. The instrument was administered one-on-one to each child. As the purpose of the pictures was to provide a visual ‘cue’ as to ‘poor’ and ‘good’ performance of that skill, not to identify a skill that children may be unfamiliar with, some of the skills required further description beyond the visual picture provided. For instance, as part of administration, children were asked if they knew what the ‘gallop’ and the ‘step and slide’ were, and a physical demonstration of these skills was offered. Children were required to choose which picture was most like them (i.e., “this child is pretty good at throwing, this child is not that good at throwing, which child is like you?”) and within the chosen picture were asked to further indicate their perceived competence. Options for the ‘good’ picture included: ‘really good at. . .’ (score of four) or ‘pretty good at. . ..’ (score of three); and for the ‘poor’ picture included: ‘sort of good at. . ..’ (score of two) or ‘not that good at. . ..’ (score of one). This resulted in four possible levels of competence for each skill. Scores for each skill were summed into object control and locomotor subscales (with a possible range of scores for each subscale of 6–24), and all 12 skills (score range 12–48). A higher score reflected higher perceived competence. The children’s ability to describe differences between pictures and distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘poor’ skill performance pictures was considered important as it would indicate that the items could differentiate perceived skill competence. Therefore after the second test was completed for each subscale, children in Sample 1 were asked a series of questions for each skill to determine face validity. This process was done by starting from the beginning again and going through skill by skill. Firstly children were asked: ‘what sport/game/activity is the picture showing?’. This was to determine whether the skill performances would be seen as generic by the children or particular to certain sports or activities. Secondly: ‘which is the ‘good picture and which is the ‘not so good’ picture?’. This was followed by a prompt: ‘what is it that makes one picture ‘good’ and one ‘not so good?’. All children’s responses to the questions about what was happening in each picture were transcribed by the research team and then categorised in terms of comments which: (i) appeared to correspond to correct skill execution; (ii) did not appear to correspond to correct skill execution; or (iii) indicated confusion. Comments which appeared to correspond with correct skill execution were then further categorised according to the skill
Please cite this article in press as: Barnett LM, et al. Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. J Sci Med Sport (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.004
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
JSAMS-979; No. of Pages 5
L.M. Barnett et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
ReTest Object Control
Test Object Control
Face validity
7 days
Test All Skills
Feedback from authors and expert
Sample 1 N=32
No refinement of Locomotor pictures needed
Development of Locomotor pictures
May 2012
Feedback from authors and expert
Face validity
7 days Refinement of selected Object Control pictures
Development of Object Control pictures
ReTest Loco motor
Test Loco motor
3
October 2012
November 2012
Sample 1 n=23
Sample 2 N=58
Fig. 1. Procedure and timeline.
performance factors which the children had identified. We termed these ‘skill factors’ as opposed to skill components, as the children identified both process oriented movement components (e.g., position of the hands) and product outcome skill measures (e.g., power and speed of the ball). As some skill factors elicited similar comments, only one child’s comment for each of the identified factors are presented as an example. To illustrate, for the overhand throw, children’s comments could be categorised under the skill movement factors of ‘eye position’, ‘arm movement’, ‘body position’, ‘position of ball’, and ‘power of throw’. For example for the throwing pictures a child might say, ‘He is throwing a cricket ball, this one is the good picture because his arm went back and he threw it far. This one can’t do it because he is not putting a hand behind him, just using a floppy arm. This boy’s first response would be noted as type of sport/game/activity: cricket and the comments categorised under ‘arm movement’. The authors discussed the confusion/misinterpretation of skill factors to determine whether common themes were identified and a decision was made whether slight alterations of the skill picture were needed to resolve future confusion. The artist was then asked to change the identified pictures as specified. A brief description of the instrument administration procedure follows. Sample 1 was recruited in May 2012 from a metropolitan primary school for the purposes of initial reliability and face validity testing of the object control subscale. In May, Sample 1 children were assessed at two time points seven days apart for the object control subscale. After the second assessment children were asked about their interpretation of the object control pictures (face validity). In October 2012, parents of these children were asked to provide further consent for their child to test the locomotor subscale. Accordingly, re-consenting Sample 1 children were assessed at two time points seven days apart for the locomotor subscale. Similarly, after the second assessment children were asked about their interpretation of the locomotor pictures (face validity). Face validity testing informed any minor subsequent changes to illustrations. Each assessment of six skills took around 5 min. The face validity testing took an extra 5 min for each subscale. In November 2012, a slightly older and different sample of children (Sample 2) was recruited from an existing cohort study15 to further test internal reliability of the items. Fifty-eight children from Sample 2 (26 boys, 32 girls) aged 6–8 years (M = 7.2, SD = 0.7) completed all 12 items at home during one assessment. The assessment of twelve skills took around 10 min. See Fig. 1 for an illustration of the timeline and what each sample was involved in at each point.
In Sample 1 only, using a one-way random effects model, where people effects are random, test–retest reliability was conducted for all six object control skills, all six locomotor skills, and all 12 skills combined. An Intra-class correlation (ICC) < 0.40 was rated as poor agreement, 0.40–0.75 as fair to good agreement, and >0.75 as excellent agreement.16 It is also important to measure internal consistency to determine to what extent the items of a test measure the same construct. In both samples, internal consistency was examined for the six object control items, six locomotor items, and all 12 items (for sample 1 at both test points) using Cronbach’s alpha. In Sample 2, which had about twice as many children, these internal consistency tests were also conducted for boys and girls separately. An alpha of over 0.60 was considered acceptable.17 SPSS Version 21 was used to analyse data.
3. Results Thirty-two children (18 boys) aged 5–7 years (M = 6.0, SD = 0.8) completed both assessments of the object control items and 23 children (12 boys; age M = 6.5, SD = 0.9) completed both assessments of the locomotor subscale at school one week apart (Sample 1). Fiftyeight children from Sample 2 (26 boys, 32 girls) aged 6–8 years (M = 7.2, SD = 0.7) completed all 12 items at one assessment. In Sample 1, the ICCs for all 12 skills (0.83), the six object control items (0.78) and the six locomotor items (0.82) were excellent (Table 1). Internal consistency values in both samples for the six object control items, six locomotor items, and all 12 items were all ≥0.60. In Sample 2, for boys, the lowest internal consistency value was 0.69 (object control) and the highest was 0.72 (all 12 skills). For girls, the lowest internal consistency value was 0.70 (object control) and the highest was 0.81 (all 12 skills). Table S1 presents children’s perceived skill factors identified for each object control skill picture (‘good’ and ‘poor’). Table S2 presents the skill factors that children identified for each locomotor skill picture (‘good’ and ‘poor’). Many skill factors were identified that contribute to successful and poor skill performance. Only a small number of children (from one to three) expressed any confusion over the pictures; as a result of these comments a few, very minor, alterations to the object control pictures were made. For example, the ‘good’ catch was modified to show the ball closer to the child and a greater bend in the child’s elbows to make it more obvious the child would catch the ball. Very few children misinterpreted the locomotor skill pictures, though all children requested a demonstration of the gallop and the step and slide. No child made
Please cite this article in press as: Barnett LM, et al. Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. J Sci Med Sport (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.004
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
JSAMS-979; No. of Pages 5
0.69 0.69 0.71 20.1(2.9) 19.3(3.0) 20.7(2.7) 3.35 3.22 3.45 13–24 13–24 16–24 3.18 All = 23 LOC
12–24
19.1 (3.0)
0.64
All = 23
12–24
3.17
19.0 (3.2)
0.68
All = 23
0.82 (0.63–0.92)
All = 58 B = 26 G = 32
19.9(3.0) 20.5(3.1) 19.5(3.0) 14–24 14–24 15–24 3.20 11–24 All = 35 OC
3.11
19.2 (3.3)
0.63
All = 33
11–24
3.22
19.3 (3.4)
0.72
All = 32
0.78 (0.60–0.89)
All = 58 B = 26 G = 32
3.32 3.42 3.25
0.76 0.72 0.81 40.0(4.9) 39.8(4.8) 40.1(5.1)
Alpha Mtot (SD)
3.33 3.32 3.34 27–48 27–48 31–48
Mskill Range n
0.83 (0.60–0.93) All = 18
n Alpha
0.60 37.3 (4.5)
Mtot (SD) Mskill
3.11 31 –46
Range n
All = 19
Mskill
26 –47 All = 21
Range
Mtot (SD)
Alpha n
0.73
Test 2
37.3 (5.5)
ICC (LCI–UCI)
All = 58 B = 26 G = 32
This study examined the test–retest and internal reliability and face validity of an instrument designed to assess perceived FMS competency in young children finding that the instrument is a valid and reliable measure of young children’s (both boys and girls) perceptions of FMS competence. Two frequently used and well validated instruments were integrated and modified5,9 to enable the measurement of perceived FMS in young children. Children could generally understand the pictures, which they demonstrated by relating them to their play, physical education and sport. This provided good evidence of face validity. Nearly all children could identify why a picture was a ‘good’ or ‘poor’ representation of the skill. Perhaps surprisingly, children of this age also managed to identify many of the correct skill features required to perform these skills. For example, for the throw, children’s comments indicated that they were able to identify the ‘windup’: ‘Her arm went back and she threw it far’; ‘You put arm back then overhead’; ‘Putting his arm, bones making strong, then throw it’. Test–retest reliabilities for both subscales and overall perceived FMS competency were excellent. It would be expected that the 12 assessed skills would be measuring a similar construct, especially when further divided into the subscales of object control and locomotor skills. The TGMD-2 reports high reliability coefficients for both skill sets in the age groups 5–7 years (ranging from 0.82 to 0.88 for locomotor skills and 0.86–0.90 for the object control skills).9 This was supported by the current study in that both samples reported good internal consistency values. Our internal consistency value in Sample 2 for all 12 skills (0.76) was very similar to that reported for the gross motor competence scale in the Children’s Perception of Motor Competence Scale (0.78),14 but was higher than Harter and Pike’s reported internal consistency for the physical competence subscale in both first/second grade children (0.53) and in kindergarten children (0.63),5 and also in a subsequent assessment in kindergarten children (0.55).18 Internal consistency values were also acceptable for both boys and girls, which supports the use of the sex specific scales and the use of the instrument with both sexes. In the present study, children identified a number of activities that could use a particular skill within their own frame of reference. This is important to note as whilst the drawings used to depict different skills were not intended to be sport specific, the assessment of some skills using the TGMD-2 could be potentially identified as sport-specific. Several modifications were made to reduce this potential association of a skill to a particular sport (e.g. the picture depicting the hit did not show a T-ball stand despite its use in the TGMD-2 hitting assessment). For the ‘hitting’ pictures, whilst a third of the children identified baseball, another third identified cricket and the remainder (apart from one who identified golf) did not identify a sport. This suggested to the researchers that many children saw the hit as a generic skill and applied their selfperceptions to a sport they knew or identified with. Whilst this was a positive finding, research is needed with different populations of children to examine this further. This study has provided preliminary evidence for the reliability and face validity of this instrument to assess perceived FMS competence in young children. However, several limitations should be noted. There was a small sample for the test–retest reliability testing, particularly for the locomotor skills. Several minor changes
All 12
Sample 2
comments which did not correspond to correct skill execution therefore no changes were made to the locomotor subscale. Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams. 2013.12.004.
4. Discussion
Test 1
Sample 1
Table 1 Descriptive and reliability statistics for all 12, object control (OC) and locomotor (LOC) perceived skills in both samples.
0.70 0.69 0.70
L.M. Barnett et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
4
Please cite this article in press as: Barnett LM, et al. Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. J Sci Med Sport (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.004
G Model JSAMS-979; No. of Pages 5
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.M. Barnett et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
to some of the object control drawings were also made after the assessment of face validity. Conducting face validity assessments prior to the test–retest assessment could have influenced children’s responses to the pictures, though the findings from this assessment meant that the final instrument had slight modifications after this test. It should be noted that consistency values were similar in the second sample for the object control subscale, indicating these slight modifications did not impact negatively on the internal reliability. It is possible that because a demonstration was provided only for the gallop and step and slide, that this may have potentially influenced responses in a different way for these skills compared to the other skills. However, since all the other skills were well known to the children we believe any bias would be negligible. We recommend for future use of the instrument that demonstrations be provided for skills not known to the children; potentially in other cultural contexts some skills may be less familiar than others. Further reliability testing of the pictorial instrument would therefore be beneficial in a larger sample and also to test generalizability. A study in a low income ethnically diverse sample found many of the preschool children could not complete basic cognitive tests considered important to master to be able to complete a pictorial assessment.19 The children in the current study were not of preschool age but may have shown good understanding of the pictorial instrument because our convenience sample populations were not likely to be disadvantaged. Many of the responding parents in Sample 2 had a university education and whilst we did not collect demographic information from Sample 1, suburb level information suggests the sample were not disadvantaged (78% of residents are born in Australia, 87% speak English at home and the median family income is slightly above the state average20 ). 5. Conclusions This instrument builds on the strengths of existing instruments to further research the area of children’s FMS. It has good current applicability, and children responded well to the drawings and understood them. If we can validly and reliably assess young children’s perceived and actual competence regarding the same skills, then we can assess how closely aligned perceived and actual FMS competences are. This will enable us to tease out the importance of young children’s perceived FMS competence to health behaviours known to be associated with actual FMS ability, such as physical activity, fitness and lowered risk of overweight and obesity.21 Thus, aligning the measurement of perceived FMS competence in young children to a commonly used actual FMS assessment may help us to design and evaluate interventions that will improve FMS competence in young children. Practical implications • This instrument can be used to assess perceived FMS competence in young children. • This instrument can be used to assess whether perceived FMS competence has improved in interventions aiming to improve movement skill. • Understanding how young children perceive their FMS will help in knowing how important FMS perceptions are to physical activity behaviour.
5
Acknowledgements Thank you to Bill Mezzetti the artist who provided the pictorial illustrations and the school, parents and children that were involved. Data collection for Sample 1 was supported by the University. The cohort study that Sample 2 was derived from is funded by an ARC Discovery Grant No. DP110101434. Author 1 is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship and Author 2 is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE120101173). Author 4 is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Principal Research Fellowship. References 1. Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Cliff DP et al. Review of the benefits associated with fundamental movement skill competency in youth. Sports Med 2010; 40(12):1019–1035. 2. Barnett L, van Beurden E, Morgan PJ et al. Childhood motor skill proficiency as a predictor of adolescent physical activity. J Adolesc Health 2009; 44: 252–259. 3. Harter S. Effectance motivation reconsidered: toward a developmental model. Hum Dev 1978; 21:34–64. 4. Barnett L, Morgan PJ, van Beurden E et al. Perceived sports competence mediates the relationship between childhood motor skill proficiency and adolescent physical activity and fitness: a longitudinal assessment. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2008; 5(40). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-5-40. 5. Harter S, Pike R. The pictorial scale of percieved competence and acceptance for young children. Child Dev 1984; 55:1969–1982. 6. Robinson LE. The relationship between perceived physical competence and fundamental motor skills in preschool children. Child Care Health Dev 2010; 37(4):589–596. 7. LeGear M, Greyling L, Sloan E et al. A window of opportunity? Motor skills and perceptions of competence of children in Kindergarten. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012; 9(1):29. 8. Goodway JD, Rudisill ME. Perceived physical competence and actual motor skill competence of African American preschool. Adapt Phys Activ Q 1997; 14(4):314–326. 9. Ulrich DA. Test of gross motor development, 2nd ed. Austin, TX, PRO-ED Incorporated, 2000. 10. Logan SW, Robinson LE, Wilson AE et al. Getting the fundamentals of movement: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of motor skill interventions in children. Child Care Health Dev 2012; 38(3):305–315. 11. Riethmuller AM, Jones RA, Okely AD. Efficacy of interventions to improve motor development in young children: a systematic review. Pediatrics 2009; 124(4):e782–e792. 12. Ulrich DA, Collier DH. Perceived physical competence in children with mental retardation: modification of a pictorial scale. Adapt Phys Activ Q 1990; 7(4):338–354. 13. Ulrich DA. TGMD, test of gross motor development, Austin, TX, PRO-ED, 1985. 14. Pérez LMR, Sanz JLG. New measure of perceived motor competence for children ages 4 to 6 years. Percept Mot Skills 2005; 101(1):131–148. 15. Hinkley T, Salmon J, Okely AD et al. The HAPPY study: development and reliability of a parent survey to assess correlates of preschool children’s physical activity. J Sci Med Sport 2012; 15(5):407–417. 16. Nunnely JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory, 3rd ed. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1994. 17. Sim J, Wright C. Research in health care: concepts, designs and methods, Cheltenham, Victoria, Stanley Thornes Ltd., 2000. 18. Strein W, Simonson T. Kindergartner’s self-perceptions: theoretical and measurement issues. Meas Eval Couns Dev 1999; 32(1):31–42. 19. Fantuzzo JW, McDermott PA, Manz PH et al. The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance: does it work with low-income urban children? Child Dev 1996; 67(3):1071–1084. 20. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011 census quick stats, 2012. http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census services/getproduct/census/2011/ quickstat/SSC20615?opendocument&navpos=220 21. Hardy LL, Reinten-Reynolds T, Espinel P et al. Prevalence and correlates of low fundamental movement skill competency in children. Pediatrics 2012; 130(2):e390–e398.
Please cite this article in press as: Barnett LM, et al. Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. J Sci Med Sport (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.004
ARTICLE IN PRESS
JSAMS-979; No. of Pages 5
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsams
Original research
Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children Lisa M. Barnett a,∗ , Nicola D. Ridgers b , Avigdor Zask c,d,e , Jo Salmon b a
School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Australia Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition, Deakin University, Australia Health Promotion Unit, Northern New South Wales Local Health District, Australia d School of Public Health, University Centre for Rural Health, North Coast. The University of Sydney, Australia e School of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Australia b c
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 1 May 2013 Received in revised form 4 September 2013 Accepted 20 December 2013 Available online xxx Keywords: Child Movement skill Object control Locomotor Manipulative skills
a b s t r a c t Objectives: To determine reliability and face validity of an instrument to assess young children’s perceived fundamental movement skill competence. Design: Validation and reliability study. Methods: A pictorial instrument based on the Test Gross Motor Development-2 assessed perceived locomotor (six skills) and object control (six skills) competence using the format and item structure from the physical competence subscale of the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children. Sample 1 completed object control items in May (n = 32) and locomotor items in October 2012 (n = 23) at two time points seven days apart. Children were asked at the end of the test–retest their understanding of what was happening in each picture to determine face validity. Sample 2 (n = 58) completed 12 items in November 2012 on a single occasion to test internal reliability only. Results: Sample 1 children were aged 5–7 years (M = 6.0, SD = 0.8) at object control assessment and 5–8 years at locomotor assessment (M = 6.5, SD = 0.9). Sample 2 children were aged 6–8 years (M = 7.2, SD = 0.73). Intra-class correlations assessed in Sample 1 children were excellent for object control (intra-class correlation = 0.78), locomotor (intra-class correlation = 0.82) and all 12 skills (intra-class correlations = 0.83). Face validity was acceptable. Internal consistency was adequate in both samples for each subscale and all 12 skills (alpha range 0.60–0.81). Conclusions: This study has provided preliminary evidence for instrument reliability and face validity. This enables future alignment between the measurement of perceived and actual fundamental movement skill competence in young children. Crown Copyright © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Sports Medicine Australia. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Childhood fundamental movement skill (FMS) ability (e.g. to throw, kick and jump) is associated with physical activity1 and is a potentially important determinant of adolescent physical activity.2 However, perceptions of competence may more directly affect motivation towards physical activity than actual competence.3 Indeed, Barnett et al.4 found that perceived competence influenced the relationship between children’s actual FMS proficiency and their subsequent physical activity levels. In young children (under eight years old), Harter and Pike have published psychometric data demonstrating support for a ‘perceived competence’ construct broken down into ‘cognitive competence’ and ‘physical competence’.5 Thus the Pictorial Scale
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (L.M. Barnett).
of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children5 was designed in 1984 for children from preschool to second grade (four to eight years old) to assess physical self-perceptions in young children. It measures four domains: perceived physical and cognitive competence, and perceived peer and maternal acceptance.5 Since then, this instrument has been commonly used but whilst it assesses physical competence in terms of what could be seen as typical actions of childhood (e.g. swinging on a swing, tying shoelaces) it does not comprehensively assess (in either the kindergarten or first/second grade version) the type of physical movement skill competence that underlies sports and games in childhood and later in life. A possible limitation of current research examining associations between actual and perceived competence is the lack of an instrument to assess FMS perceived competence that matches the actual skills assessed.6,7 A valid and reliable assessment of perceived FMS competence using the same skills as tests of actual skill ability would enhance researchers’ understanding of whether children
1440-2440/$ – see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Sports Medicine Australia. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.004
Please cite this article in press as: Barnett LM, et al. Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. J Sci Med Sport (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.004
G Model JSAMS-979; No. of Pages 5
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.M. Barnett et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
2
overestimate, underestimate or accurately assess their FMS ability, which has potential to influence physical activity behavior.8 The assessment of children’s actual FMS competence usually tests a range of skills that encompass both locomotor (movement from one point to another) and object control (manipulation of an object such as a ball) skills. A commonly used assessment of children’s actual FMS performance is the Test of Gross Motor Development, which examines six locomotor and six object control skills.9 For example, in two recent reviews of motor skill interventions in children,10,11 the majority of studies used the TGMD-2 or the earlier TGMD.12 Interestingly, the author of the TGMD-29 modified the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children in 1990 to assess perceived FMS ability in 7–12 year-old children with an intellectual disability.12 At this time the TGMD-29 was not yet developed, hence eight of the 10 items in this instrument modification match the original TGMD,13 and seven items match the TGMD-2. The modified instrument showed good internal consistency (0.82),12 indicating that grouping these types of skills together (at least in that sample) makes sense, although this instrument has not been used subsequently, or tested, in a typically developing sample of children. More recently, the Children’s Perception of Motor Competence Scale (2005) was designed to assess Spanish children’s perceived motor skill competence.14 However, it does not include common object control skills such as kicking and striking and is also centred on competence specifically within physical education.14 It is important to establish the reliability and validity of new measures. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop and assess the test–retest and internal reliability and the face validity of a pictorial instrument designed to assess perceived FMS competence (specifically the object control and locomotor skills assessed in the TGMD-2) in young children.
2. Methods For both samples ethics approval was granted from the University and the schools authority; parents gave written consent and children assented. A total of thirty-two children (18 boys) were recruited as part of Sample 1. Demographic information was not collected from parents in Sample 1. Fifty-eight children (26 boys, 32 girls) were recruited from Sample 2. Two-thirds (67%) of Sample 2 respondent parents were Australian born, nine were born in other English speaking countries and the remainder were born in non-English speaking countries. Approximately two-thirds (69%) had a University degree, one quarter had a trade/apprenticeship or diploma, and the remainder had Year 10 equivalent. A pictorial instrument based on the TGMD-2 six locomotor (run, gallop, hop, leap, horizontal jump, and slide); and six object control skills (striking a stationary ball, stationary dribble, kick, catch, overhand throw, and underhand roll) was developed. Newly created subscales assessed locomotor and object control competence using the format and item structure from the physical competence subscale of the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children.5 The format and structure of the items were retained, but nearly all items (except bouncing a ball) and all illustrations were new. The name of each skill was the same as in the TGMD-2, except for: the slide, which was identified to the children as the ‘step and slide’, the horizontal jump, which was renamed ‘jumping forwards’, the strike which was termed ‘hitting a ball’ and the dribble which was termed ‘bouncing a ball’. This was to facilitate understanding of the movements depicted in the drawings for this young age group. An artist provided drawings that represented ‘poor’ and ‘good’ performances by both boys and girls for each of the 12 skills. So that children from diverse backgrounds could identify with the
illustrations, they were drawn in a cartoon format. Correct skill execution was described to the artist in terms of the components as defined by the TGMD-2 (for example bending knees to lower body in the underhand roll).9 The process of development involved the drawings being emailed to each of the authors and an expert in the field (a researcher in the area of movement skills in children) with feedback sought on whether the picture was seen to represent correct (in the case of the ‘good’ picture) and incorrect (in the case of the ‘poor’ picture) execution of the skill. Feedback was collated and given to the artist, whereupon drawings were adjusted and sent again to the authors for approval prior to being tested with children. A generic issue that the expert in the field raised, was that the pictures need to more obviously show difference between good and poor skill performances and there was a concern the differences may be subtle for this age group. For example, it was thought that in the poor catch the child should drop the ball. It was also suggested that the ball should move further away from the child in the poor picture of the bounce to show the child does not have control over the ball. These issues were addressed. Instructions for administering the instrument were developed. As per administration of the original Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Acceptance for Young Children,5 skills for each subscale were ordered in a sequence so that ‘good’ competence alternated in position on the page with ‘poor’ competence. Boys received the booklet depicting boy cartoon figures and vice versa for girls. The instrument was administered one-on-one to each child. As the purpose of the pictures was to provide a visual ‘cue’ as to ‘poor’ and ‘good’ performance of that skill, not to identify a skill that children may be unfamiliar with, some of the skills required further description beyond the visual picture provided. For instance, as part of administration, children were asked if they knew what the ‘gallop’ and the ‘step and slide’ were, and a physical demonstration of these skills was offered. Children were required to choose which picture was most like them (i.e., “this child is pretty good at throwing, this child is not that good at throwing, which child is like you?”) and within the chosen picture were asked to further indicate their perceived competence. Options for the ‘good’ picture included: ‘really good at. . .’ (score of four) or ‘pretty good at. . ..’ (score of three); and for the ‘poor’ picture included: ‘sort of good at. . ..’ (score of two) or ‘not that good at. . ..’ (score of one). This resulted in four possible levels of competence for each skill. Scores for each skill were summed into object control and locomotor subscales (with a possible range of scores for each subscale of 6–24), and all 12 skills (score range 12–48). A higher score reflected higher perceived competence. The children’s ability to describe differences between pictures and distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘poor’ skill performance pictures was considered important as it would indicate that the items could differentiate perceived skill competence. Therefore after the second test was completed for each subscale, children in Sample 1 were asked a series of questions for each skill to determine face validity. This process was done by starting from the beginning again and going through skill by skill. Firstly children were asked: ‘what sport/game/activity is the picture showing?’. This was to determine whether the skill performances would be seen as generic by the children or particular to certain sports or activities. Secondly: ‘which is the ‘good picture and which is the ‘not so good’ picture?’. This was followed by a prompt: ‘what is it that makes one picture ‘good’ and one ‘not so good?’. All children’s responses to the questions about what was happening in each picture were transcribed by the research team and then categorised in terms of comments which: (i) appeared to correspond to correct skill execution; (ii) did not appear to correspond to correct skill execution; or (iii) indicated confusion. Comments which appeared to correspond with correct skill execution were then further categorised according to the skill
Please cite this article in press as: Barnett LM, et al. Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. J Sci Med Sport (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.004
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
JSAMS-979; No. of Pages 5
L.M. Barnett et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
ReTest Object Control
Test Object Control
Face validity
7 days
Test All Skills
Feedback from authors and expert
Sample 1 N=32
No refinement of Locomotor pictures needed
Development of Locomotor pictures
May 2012
Feedback from authors and expert
Face validity
7 days Refinement of selected Object Control pictures
Development of Object Control pictures
ReTest Loco motor
Test Loco motor
3
October 2012
November 2012
Sample 1 n=23
Sample 2 N=58
Fig. 1. Procedure and timeline.
performance factors which the children had identified. We termed these ‘skill factors’ as opposed to skill components, as the children identified both process oriented movement components (e.g., position of the hands) and product outcome skill measures (e.g., power and speed of the ball). As some skill factors elicited similar comments, only one child’s comment for each of the identified factors are presented as an example. To illustrate, for the overhand throw, children’s comments could be categorised under the skill movement factors of ‘eye position’, ‘arm movement’, ‘body position’, ‘position of ball’, and ‘power of throw’. For example for the throwing pictures a child might say, ‘He is throwing a cricket ball, this one is the good picture because his arm went back and he threw it far. This one can’t do it because he is not putting a hand behind him, just using a floppy arm. This boy’s first response would be noted as type of sport/game/activity: cricket and the comments categorised under ‘arm movement’. The authors discussed the confusion/misinterpretation of skill factors to determine whether common themes were identified and a decision was made whether slight alterations of the skill picture were needed to resolve future confusion. The artist was then asked to change the identified pictures as specified. A brief description of the instrument administration procedure follows. Sample 1 was recruited in May 2012 from a metropolitan primary school for the purposes of initial reliability and face validity testing of the object control subscale. In May, Sample 1 children were assessed at two time points seven days apart for the object control subscale. After the second assessment children were asked about their interpretation of the object control pictures (face validity). In October 2012, parents of these children were asked to provide further consent for their child to test the locomotor subscale. Accordingly, re-consenting Sample 1 children were assessed at two time points seven days apart for the locomotor subscale. Similarly, after the second assessment children were asked about their interpretation of the locomotor pictures (face validity). Face validity testing informed any minor subsequent changes to illustrations. Each assessment of six skills took around 5 min. The face validity testing took an extra 5 min for each subscale. In November 2012, a slightly older and different sample of children (Sample 2) was recruited from an existing cohort study15 to further test internal reliability of the items. Fifty-eight children from Sample 2 (26 boys, 32 girls) aged 6–8 years (M = 7.2, SD = 0.7) completed all 12 items at home during one assessment. The assessment of twelve skills took around 10 min. See Fig. 1 for an illustration of the timeline and what each sample was involved in at each point.
In Sample 1 only, using a one-way random effects model, where people effects are random, test–retest reliability was conducted for all six object control skills, all six locomotor skills, and all 12 skills combined. An Intra-class correlation (ICC) < 0.40 was rated as poor agreement, 0.40–0.75 as fair to good agreement, and >0.75 as excellent agreement.16 It is also important to measure internal consistency to determine to what extent the items of a test measure the same construct. In both samples, internal consistency was examined for the six object control items, six locomotor items, and all 12 items (for sample 1 at both test points) using Cronbach’s alpha. In Sample 2, which had about twice as many children, these internal consistency tests were also conducted for boys and girls separately. An alpha of over 0.60 was considered acceptable.17 SPSS Version 21 was used to analyse data.
3. Results Thirty-two children (18 boys) aged 5–7 years (M = 6.0, SD = 0.8) completed both assessments of the object control items and 23 children (12 boys; age M = 6.5, SD = 0.9) completed both assessments of the locomotor subscale at school one week apart (Sample 1). Fiftyeight children from Sample 2 (26 boys, 32 girls) aged 6–8 years (M = 7.2, SD = 0.7) completed all 12 items at one assessment. In Sample 1, the ICCs for all 12 skills (0.83), the six object control items (0.78) and the six locomotor items (0.82) were excellent (Table 1). Internal consistency values in both samples for the six object control items, six locomotor items, and all 12 items were all ≥0.60. In Sample 2, for boys, the lowest internal consistency value was 0.69 (object control) and the highest was 0.72 (all 12 skills). For girls, the lowest internal consistency value was 0.70 (object control) and the highest was 0.81 (all 12 skills). Table S1 presents children’s perceived skill factors identified for each object control skill picture (‘good’ and ‘poor’). Table S2 presents the skill factors that children identified for each locomotor skill picture (‘good’ and ‘poor’). Many skill factors were identified that contribute to successful and poor skill performance. Only a small number of children (from one to three) expressed any confusion over the pictures; as a result of these comments a few, very minor, alterations to the object control pictures were made. For example, the ‘good’ catch was modified to show the ball closer to the child and a greater bend in the child’s elbows to make it more obvious the child would catch the ball. Very few children misinterpreted the locomotor skill pictures, though all children requested a demonstration of the gallop and the step and slide. No child made
Please cite this article in press as: Barnett LM, et al. Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. J Sci Med Sport (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.004
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
JSAMS-979; No. of Pages 5
0.69 0.69 0.71 20.1(2.9) 19.3(3.0) 20.7(2.7) 3.35 3.22 3.45 13–24 13–24 16–24 3.18 All = 23 LOC
12–24
19.1 (3.0)
0.64
All = 23
12–24
3.17
19.0 (3.2)
0.68
All = 23
0.82 (0.63–0.92)
All = 58 B = 26 G = 32
19.9(3.0) 20.5(3.1) 19.5(3.0) 14–24 14–24 15–24 3.20 11–24 All = 35 OC
3.11
19.2 (3.3)
0.63
All = 33
11–24
3.22
19.3 (3.4)
0.72
All = 32
0.78 (0.60–0.89)
All = 58 B = 26 G = 32
3.32 3.42 3.25
0.76 0.72 0.81 40.0(4.9) 39.8(4.8) 40.1(5.1)
Alpha Mtot (SD)
3.33 3.32 3.34 27–48 27–48 31–48
Mskill Range n
0.83 (0.60–0.93) All = 18
n Alpha
0.60 37.3 (4.5)
Mtot (SD) Mskill
3.11 31 –46
Range n
All = 19
Mskill
26 –47 All = 21
Range
Mtot (SD)
Alpha n
0.73
Test 2
37.3 (5.5)
ICC (LCI–UCI)
All = 58 B = 26 G = 32
This study examined the test–retest and internal reliability and face validity of an instrument designed to assess perceived FMS competency in young children finding that the instrument is a valid and reliable measure of young children’s (both boys and girls) perceptions of FMS competence. Two frequently used and well validated instruments were integrated and modified5,9 to enable the measurement of perceived FMS in young children. Children could generally understand the pictures, which they demonstrated by relating them to their play, physical education and sport. This provided good evidence of face validity. Nearly all children could identify why a picture was a ‘good’ or ‘poor’ representation of the skill. Perhaps surprisingly, children of this age also managed to identify many of the correct skill features required to perform these skills. For example, for the throw, children’s comments indicated that they were able to identify the ‘windup’: ‘Her arm went back and she threw it far’; ‘You put arm back then overhead’; ‘Putting his arm, bones making strong, then throw it’. Test–retest reliabilities for both subscales and overall perceived FMS competency were excellent. It would be expected that the 12 assessed skills would be measuring a similar construct, especially when further divided into the subscales of object control and locomotor skills. The TGMD-2 reports high reliability coefficients for both skill sets in the age groups 5–7 years (ranging from 0.82 to 0.88 for locomotor skills and 0.86–0.90 for the object control skills).9 This was supported by the current study in that both samples reported good internal consistency values. Our internal consistency value in Sample 2 for all 12 skills (0.76) was very similar to that reported for the gross motor competence scale in the Children’s Perception of Motor Competence Scale (0.78),14 but was higher than Harter and Pike’s reported internal consistency for the physical competence subscale in both first/second grade children (0.53) and in kindergarten children (0.63),5 and also in a subsequent assessment in kindergarten children (0.55).18 Internal consistency values were also acceptable for both boys and girls, which supports the use of the sex specific scales and the use of the instrument with both sexes. In the present study, children identified a number of activities that could use a particular skill within their own frame of reference. This is important to note as whilst the drawings used to depict different skills were not intended to be sport specific, the assessment of some skills using the TGMD-2 could be potentially identified as sport-specific. Several modifications were made to reduce this potential association of a skill to a particular sport (e.g. the picture depicting the hit did not show a T-ball stand despite its use in the TGMD-2 hitting assessment). For the ‘hitting’ pictures, whilst a third of the children identified baseball, another third identified cricket and the remainder (apart from one who identified golf) did not identify a sport. This suggested to the researchers that many children saw the hit as a generic skill and applied their selfperceptions to a sport they knew or identified with. Whilst this was a positive finding, research is needed with different populations of children to examine this further. This study has provided preliminary evidence for the reliability and face validity of this instrument to assess perceived FMS competence in young children. However, several limitations should be noted. There was a small sample for the test–retest reliability testing, particularly for the locomotor skills. Several minor changes
All 12
Sample 2
comments which did not correspond to correct skill execution therefore no changes were made to the locomotor subscale. Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams. 2013.12.004.
4. Discussion
Test 1
Sample 1
Table 1 Descriptive and reliability statistics for all 12, object control (OC) and locomotor (LOC) perceived skills in both samples.
0.70 0.69 0.70
L.M. Barnett et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
4
Please cite this article in press as: Barnett LM, et al. Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. J Sci Med Sport (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.004
G Model JSAMS-979; No. of Pages 5
ARTICLE IN PRESS L.M. Barnett et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
to some of the object control drawings were also made after the assessment of face validity. Conducting face validity assessments prior to the test–retest assessment could have influenced children’s responses to the pictures, though the findings from this assessment meant that the final instrument had slight modifications after this test. It should be noted that consistency values were similar in the second sample for the object control subscale, indicating these slight modifications did not impact negatively on the internal reliability. It is possible that because a demonstration was provided only for the gallop and step and slide, that this may have potentially influenced responses in a different way for these skills compared to the other skills. However, since all the other skills were well known to the children we believe any bias would be negligible. We recommend for future use of the instrument that demonstrations be provided for skills not known to the children; potentially in other cultural contexts some skills may be less familiar than others. Further reliability testing of the pictorial instrument would therefore be beneficial in a larger sample and also to test generalizability. A study in a low income ethnically diverse sample found many of the preschool children could not complete basic cognitive tests considered important to master to be able to complete a pictorial assessment.19 The children in the current study were not of preschool age but may have shown good understanding of the pictorial instrument because our convenience sample populations were not likely to be disadvantaged. Many of the responding parents in Sample 2 had a university education and whilst we did not collect demographic information from Sample 1, suburb level information suggests the sample were not disadvantaged (78% of residents are born in Australia, 87% speak English at home and the median family income is slightly above the state average20 ). 5. Conclusions This instrument builds on the strengths of existing instruments to further research the area of children’s FMS. It has good current applicability, and children responded well to the drawings and understood them. If we can validly and reliably assess young children’s perceived and actual competence regarding the same skills, then we can assess how closely aligned perceived and actual FMS competences are. This will enable us to tease out the importance of young children’s perceived FMS competence to health behaviours known to be associated with actual FMS ability, such as physical activity, fitness and lowered risk of overweight and obesity.21 Thus, aligning the measurement of perceived FMS competence in young children to a commonly used actual FMS assessment may help us to design and evaluate interventions that will improve FMS competence in young children. Practical implications • This instrument can be used to assess perceived FMS competence in young children. • This instrument can be used to assess whether perceived FMS competence has improved in interventions aiming to improve movement skill. • Understanding how young children perceive their FMS will help in knowing how important FMS perceptions are to physical activity behaviour.
5
Acknowledgements Thank you to Bill Mezzetti the artist who provided the pictorial illustrations and the school, parents and children that were involved. Data collection for Sample 1 was supported by the University. The cohort study that Sample 2 was derived from is funded by an ARC Discovery Grant No. DP110101434. Author 1 is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship and Author 2 is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE120101173). Author 4 is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Principal Research Fellowship. References 1. Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Cliff DP et al. Review of the benefits associated with fundamental movement skill competency in youth. Sports Med 2010; 40(12):1019–1035. 2. Barnett L, van Beurden E, Morgan PJ et al. Childhood motor skill proficiency as a predictor of adolescent physical activity. J Adolesc Health 2009; 44: 252–259. 3. Harter S. Effectance motivation reconsidered: toward a developmental model. Hum Dev 1978; 21:34–64. 4. Barnett L, Morgan PJ, van Beurden E et al. Perceived sports competence mediates the relationship between childhood motor skill proficiency and adolescent physical activity and fitness: a longitudinal assessment. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2008; 5(40). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-5-40. 5. Harter S, Pike R. The pictorial scale of percieved competence and acceptance for young children. Child Dev 1984; 55:1969–1982. 6. Robinson LE. The relationship between perceived physical competence and fundamental motor skills in preschool children. Child Care Health Dev 2010; 37(4):589–596. 7. LeGear M, Greyling L, Sloan E et al. A window of opportunity? Motor skills and perceptions of competence of children in Kindergarten. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012; 9(1):29. 8. Goodway JD, Rudisill ME. Perceived physical competence and actual motor skill competence of African American preschool. Adapt Phys Activ Q 1997; 14(4):314–326. 9. Ulrich DA. Test of gross motor development, 2nd ed. Austin, TX, PRO-ED Incorporated, 2000. 10. Logan SW, Robinson LE, Wilson AE et al. Getting the fundamentals of movement: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of motor skill interventions in children. Child Care Health Dev 2012; 38(3):305–315. 11. Riethmuller AM, Jones RA, Okely AD. Efficacy of interventions to improve motor development in young children: a systematic review. Pediatrics 2009; 124(4):e782–e792. 12. Ulrich DA, Collier DH. Perceived physical competence in children with mental retardation: modification of a pictorial scale. Adapt Phys Activ Q 1990; 7(4):338–354. 13. Ulrich DA. TGMD, test of gross motor development, Austin, TX, PRO-ED, 1985. 14. Pérez LMR, Sanz JLG. New measure of perceived motor competence for children ages 4 to 6 years. Percept Mot Skills 2005; 101(1):131–148. 15. Hinkley T, Salmon J, Okely AD et al. The HAPPY study: development and reliability of a parent survey to assess correlates of preschool children’s physical activity. J Sci Med Sport 2012; 15(5):407–417. 16. Nunnely JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory, 3rd ed. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1994. 17. Sim J, Wright C. Research in health care: concepts, designs and methods, Cheltenham, Victoria, Stanley Thornes Ltd., 2000. 18. Strein W, Simonson T. Kindergartner’s self-perceptions: theoretical and measurement issues. Meas Eval Couns Dev 1999; 32(1):31–42. 19. Fantuzzo JW, McDermott PA, Manz PH et al. The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance: does it work with low-income urban children? Child Dev 1996; 67(3):1071–1084. 20. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011 census quick stats, 2012. http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census services/getproduct/census/2011/ quickstat/SSC20615?opendocument&navpos=220 21. Hardy LL, Reinten-Reynolds T, Espinel P et al. Prevalence and correlates of low fundamental movement skill competency in children. Pediatrics 2012; 130(2):e390–e398.
Please cite this article in press as: Barnett LM, et al. Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. J Sci Med Sport (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.004