Allinson G1, Dewar R1, Raatz B1, Hannah S2, Johnston L3
1The University of Queensland, Division of Physiotherapy, Brisbane, Australia, 2St Peters Lutheran College, Brisbane, Australia, 3The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Background: Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder which is present in 5-6% of children. Poor postural control is thought to contribute strongly to these motor coordination difficulties. However, treatment of postural control has been limited by assessments that do not assess all postural control dimensions. Research is needed to explore the utility of new, more comprehensive assessments of postural control and the relationships between postural control domains and motor coordination difficulties.
Purpose: To (i) evaluate postural control in primary school aged children using the new 'Kids Balance Evaluation Systems Test' (Kids-BESTest), a comprehensive assessment of all postural control domains; and (ii) compare this with a commonly used postural control subset assessment (Bruininks-Oseretesky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition: BOT-2 Balance Subscale); then (iii) determine the relationship between postural control performance on these tests with motor coordination (Test of Gross Motor Development, Second Edition: TGMD-2).
Methods: Fifty-five children aged 4-12 years with normal intelligence attending mainstream schools participated in a physiotherapy assessment of (i) postural control using the comprehensive Kids-BESTest and BOT-2 Balance Subscale and (ii) motor coordination using the TGMD-2. Performance on each measure was examined using descriptive statistics (mean(SD)). Relationships between measures were examined using Spearman's Rank Correlation for categorical variables or Pearson's Product-Moment Correlation for continuous variables. Linear regression was calculated to determine postural control and demographic factors predicting motor performance.
Results: TGMD-2 Total scores ranged from the 3rd to the 97th percentile (mean 51st percentile) indicating the cohort included children with a wide range of motor abilities. Kids-BESTest Total scores ranged from 69 to 105 (64 - 97%) out of a possible 108 points (x̅=92.4 ± 8.54 points; 86% ± 7.9%) indicating the children also showed a wide range of postural control abilities. TGMD-2 Total scores (overall coordination) correlated strongly with the comprehensive Kids-BESTest Total Scores (ρ=0.60, p= 0.01) and moderately with scores on the BOT-2 Balance Subscale (r=0.45, p 0.01). Regression analysis showed that age and the Kids-BESTest Total score predicted 44% of the TGMD-2 Total score (p 0.01) while the BOT-2 Balance Subscale predicted 19% (p 0.01).
Conclusion(s): These results show that postural control predicts a substantial degree of the variance in motor performance in primary school aged children. The more comprehensive Kids-BESTest was a better predictor of motor coordination than the BOT-2 balance subscale which only includes a few postural control items.
Implications: Children with motor coordination difficulties are known to have postural control difficulties that contribute to their motor control problems. We recommend that Physiotherapists use the Kids-BESTest if wanting to perform a comprehensive postural control assessment for primary school aged children in order to plan more targeted interventions.
Keywords: Paediatrics, Postural Control, Motor Coordination
Funding acknowledgements: Nil
Purpose: To (i) evaluate postural control in primary school aged children using the new 'Kids Balance Evaluation Systems Test' (Kids-BESTest), a comprehensive assessment of all postural control domains; and (ii) compare this with a commonly used postural control subset assessment (Bruininks-Oseretesky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition: BOT-2 Balance Subscale); then (iii) determine the relationship between postural control performance on these tests with motor coordination (Test of Gross Motor Development, Second Edition: TGMD-2).
Methods: Fifty-five children aged 4-12 years with normal intelligence attending mainstream schools participated in a physiotherapy assessment of (i) postural control using the comprehensive Kids-BESTest and BOT-2 Balance Subscale and (ii) motor coordination using the TGMD-2. Performance on each measure was examined using descriptive statistics (mean(SD)). Relationships between measures were examined using Spearman's Rank Correlation for categorical variables or Pearson's Product-Moment Correlation for continuous variables. Linear regression was calculated to determine postural control and demographic factors predicting motor performance.
Results: TGMD-2 Total scores ranged from the 3rd to the 97th percentile (mean 51st percentile) indicating the cohort included children with a wide range of motor abilities. Kids-BESTest Total scores ranged from 69 to 105 (64 - 97%) out of a possible 108 points (x̅=92.4 ± 8.54 points; 86% ± 7.9%) indicating the children also showed a wide range of postural control abilities. TGMD-2 Total scores (overall coordination) correlated strongly with the comprehensive Kids-BESTest Total Scores (ρ=0.60, p= 0.01) and moderately with scores on the BOT-2 Balance Subscale (r=0.45, p 0.01). Regression analysis showed that age and the Kids-BESTest Total score predicted 44% of the TGMD-2 Total score (p 0.01) while the BOT-2 Balance Subscale predicted 19% (p 0.01).
Conclusion(s): These results show that postural control predicts a substantial degree of the variance in motor performance in primary school aged children. The more comprehensive Kids-BESTest was a better predictor of motor coordination than the BOT-2 balance subscale which only includes a few postural control items.
Implications: Children with motor coordination difficulties are known to have postural control difficulties that contribute to their motor control problems. We recommend that Physiotherapists use the Kids-BESTest if wanting to perform a comprehensive postural control assessment for primary school aged children in order to plan more targeted interventions.
Keywords: Paediatrics, Postural Control, Motor Coordination
Funding acknowledgements: Nil
Topic: Paediatrics
Ethics approval required: Yes
Institution: The University of Queensland
Ethics committee: Human Research Ethics Committee
Ethics number: NHMRC EC00456
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
