Reliability of the Test of Gross Motor Development Third Edition Among Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim The Test of Gross Motor Development Third Edition (TGMD-3) is used to assess the development of fundamental movement skills in children from 3 to 10 years old. This study aimed to evaluate the intra-rater, inter-rater, and test-retest reliability and to determine the minimal detectable change (MDC) value of the TGMD-3 in children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD).Methods The TGMD-3 was administered to 20 children with DCD. The child’s fundamental movement skills were recorded using a digital video camera. Reliability was assessed at two occasions by three raters using the generalizability theory.Results The TGMD-3 demonstrates good inter-rater reliability for the locomotor skills subscale, the ball skills subscale, and the total score (φ = 0.77 − 0.91), while the intra-rater reliability was even higher (φ = 0.94 − 0.97). Test-retest reliability was also shown to be good (φ = 0.79-0.93). The MDC95 was determined to be 10 points.Conclusion This study provides evidence that the TGMD-3 is a reliable test when used to evaluate fundamental movement skills in children with DCD and suggests that an increase of 10 points represents a significant change in the motor function of a child with DCD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".