An ICF-informed comparison of fine motor assessment measures

BACKGROUND: Fine-motor difficulties are associated with adverse educational, physical and socioemotional outcomes. Multiple tools are used to assess these difficulties. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) distinguishes body function, activity and participation as separate domains requiring measurement. We examined whether scores from measures sampling these domains align sufficiently for the tools to be treated as interchangeable. METHODS: Data were collected across four groups: (i)a whole-school sample(n = 415); (ii)a nested subsample with teacher-identified handwriting difficulties(n = 91; not independent of the whole school sample); (iii)a multi-school sample with teacher-identified handwriting difficulties(n = 172); and (iv)a clinical sample referred for occupational-therapy assessment(n = 33). Measures included the relevant fine-motor subscales of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children, Clinical Kinematic Assessment Tool, DCD Questionnaire, Detailed Assessment of Speed of Handwriting, and Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration. Correlation and linear regression quantified observed-score associations and shared variance. Principal component analysis was used as exploratory data reduction. RESULTS: Cross-tool associations were generally small, if significant. Regression models showed that any given tool predicted only a small proportion of variance in scores on the remaining tools (approximately 1-22 %). Principal component analyses consistently yielded multiple components, with scores from different tools often represented on different components. CONCLUSION: Measures commonly described as assessing fine-motor skills were not sufficiently aligned to be treated as interchangeable, consistent with the tools sampling different combinations of ICF domains and task demands. An ICF-informed assessment battery may provide a more useful basis for characterising need and planning targeted support than reliance on a single score.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
Published
2026-08-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2026.106635
Primary Topic
Children's Physical and Motor Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

An ICF-informed comparison of fine motor assessment measures

Sara Magallón, Liam J. B. Hill, Katy Shire, Nat K. Merrick et al.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
Children's Physical and Motor Development
article

An ICF-informed comparison of fine motor assessment measures

Sara Magallón, Liam J. B. Hill, Katy Shire, Nat K. Merrick, Emily A. Williams, Mark Mon-Williams, Lucy H. Eddy, Justin Williams, Cara E. Staniforth
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fine-motor difficulties are associated with adverse educational, physical and socioemotional outcomes. Multiple tools are used to assess these difficulties. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) distinguishes body function, activity and participation as separate domains requiring measurement. We examined whether scores from measures sampling these domains align sufficiently for the tools to be treated as interchangeable. METHODS: Data were collected across four groups: (i)a whole-school sample(n = 415); (ii)a nested subsample with teacher-identified handwriting difficulties(n = 91; not independent of the whole school sample); (iii)a multi-school sample with teacher-identified handwriting difficulties(n = 172); and (iv)a clinical sample referred for occupational-therapy assessment(n = 33). Measures included the relevant fine-motor subscales of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children, Clinical Kinematic Assessment Tool, DCD Questionnaire, Detailed Assessment of Speed of Handwriting, and Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration. Correlation and linear regression quantified observed-score associations and shared variance. Principal component analysis was used as exploratory data reduction. RESULTS: Cross-tool associations were generally small, if significant. Regression models showed that any given tool predicted only a small proportion of variance in scores on the remaining tools (approximately 1-22 %). Principal component analyses consistently yielded multiple components, with scores from different tools often represented on different components. CONCLUSION: Measures commonly described as assessing fine-motor skills were not sufficiently aligned to be treated as interchangeable, consistent with the tools sampling different combinations of ICF domains and task demands. An ICF-informed assessment battery may provide a more useful basis for characterising need and planning targeted support than reliance on a single score.

Journal of Experimental Child PsychologyVol. 273
Griffith University (AU), University of Leeds (GB), University of Bradford (GB), Education Scotland (GB), University of South-Eastern Norway (NO), Northumbria University (GB), Clinica Universidad de Navarra (ES), Gold Coast Health (AU), Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Universidad de Navarra (ES), University of Edinburgh (GB)
Waterloo Foundation, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Medical Research Council
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Children's Physical and Motor Development
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.