The utility of the MABC-2 for measuring motor impairment in children with ADHD: Examining measurement invariance in children with and without symptoms of ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is important to screen for motor impairments in ADHD due to high comorbidity, yet little is known about the validity of established and standardized motor assessment batteries in children with symptoms of ADHD. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the utility of using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children - 2nd Edition (MABC-2) in children aged 7-9 years with symptoms of ADHD. To achieve this, measurement invariance of the MABC-2 was examined between children with and without symptoms of ADHD. A total of 479 children (n = 277 boys, n = 387 white, n = 66 with ADHD), participated in this study. Children were classified as having ADHD through parental report on the Conner's Parent Rating Scales. Measurement invariance was assesses using a multi-group CFA. A three correlated factor model (Manual Dexterity, Throwing and Catching, Balance) fit the data extremely well (RMSEA = 0.030, SRMR = 0.030, CFI = 0.987, TLI = 0.981) and configural, metric, scalar, and partial strict invariance was demonstrated between children with and without ADHD. These results provide evidence to support the use of the MABC-2 to assess motor impairments in children with symptoms ADHD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".