Psychometric properties of observational tools for identifying motor difficulties – a systematic review

BMC Pediatrics

Table 5 Psychometric properties of the questionnaires

	Usability described	Methodological quality										Quality of the evidence
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	Sum	GRADE
1. Questionnaires for parents
1.1 CAMP
Tsang et al. [59]		+	+	+	+			+	+			6	2
Tsang et al. [87]		+			+			+		+		4	1
1.2 CBCL
Piek et al. [7]		+	+	+	+							4	2
1.3 ChAS-P/T
Rosenblum [58]	+	+		+	+			+	+			6	2
1.4 DCDQ
Rivard et al. [84]				+	+							2	2
Patel & Gabbard [83]	+			+			+		+	+		5	2
Nowak et al. [45]		+	+		+		+		+	+		6	2
Montoro et al. [81]				+			+					1	3
Miyachi et al. [80]					+	+	+					2	3
DE Milander et al. [89]		+	+			+	+					4	2
Cairney et al. [66]				+		+			+			3	2
Caravele et al. [75]			+		+		+		+	+		5	2
Caravale et al. [54]		+	+	+			+		+	+		6	2
Civetta & Hillier [76]		+	+	+	+	+	+		+			7	1
Girish et al. [77]	+			+			+		+	+		5	2
Green et al. [27]		+	+		+							3	2
Kennedy-Behr et al. [78]	+	+	+	+	+		+		+			7	2
Loh et al. [79]		+	+		+	+	+					5	2
Martini et al. [48]	+	+	+	+	+	+	+		+	+		9	2
Nakai et al. [57]				+		+	+		+			4	2
Prado et al. [82]	+		+		+		+		+	+		6	3
Schoemaker et al. [4]		+	+	+	+		+		+			6	1
Tseng et al. [85]		+	+	+	+		+		+	+		7	1
Wilson et al. [86]	+	+		+	+	+			+			6	2
Wilson et al. [64]	+	+	+	+					+			5	2
Ray-Kaeser et al. [56]	+						+					2	2
1.5 DCDDailyQ
Van der Linde [53]		+	+	+	+	+		+	+			7	1
2. Questionnaires for teachers
2.1 ChAS-P/T
Rosenblum [58]	+	+		+	+			+	+			6	2
2.2 Checklist
Dussart [71]		+			+							2	4
2.3 GMRS
Netelenbos et al. [61]		+	+	+		+			+	+	+	7	2
2.4 M-ABC-C
Capistrano et al. [72]						+						1	4
De Milander [73]		+	+									2	2
Green et al. [67]		+	+		+							3	2
Junaid et al. [63]		+	+							+		3	2
Piek & Edwards [43]	+		+				+					3	2
Schoemaker et al. [25]		+	+	+	+		+		+			6	2
Schoemaker et al. [44]	+	+	+	+	+	+	+		+			8	1
Wright et al. [45]	+	+					+			+		4	2
Wright & Sugden [74]	+	+					+			+		4	2
2.5 MOQ-T
Asunta et al. [41]	+	+	+	+			+		+			6	1
Giofre et al. [42]				+	+	+	+		+			5	1
Schoemaker et al. [62]		+	+	+	+	+			+			6	1
2.6 TEAF
Engel-Yeger et al. [16]		+			+	+	+		+			4	2
Rosenblum & Engel-Yeger [46]		+	+	+	+		+		+			5	2
Faught et al. [88]		+	+	+	+	+			+			6	1
3.Questionnaire for children
3.1 CSAPPA
Cairney et al. [24]			+		+						2	2
Hay et al. [90]			+		+					2	2

Note. 1 = usability described; 2 = concurrent validity; 3 = predictive validity; 4 = construct validity; 5 = known group validity/ discriminative validity; 6 = convergent validity; 7 = cross cultural validity; 8 = face validity; 9 = internal consistency; 10 = test-retest reliability; 11 = inter-rater reliability; SUM = the number of usability, validity and reliability assessment, not equivalent; GRADE criteria (1 = high - 4 = low)

ISSN: 1471-2431