Name of Assessment Instrument/Test:Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOT-2)
Author(s): Robert H. Bruininks and Brett D. Bruininks
Most Recent Publication Date and Edition of Test: Second Edition © 2005
Name of Publisher: American Guidance Service PublishingWebsite for Publisher:
Cost of Total Kit and Reorder of Score Sheets, etc:
Total Kit: $799.00Reorder Score Sheets: $90.00 (long form) & $36.00 (short form)
General Components/Skills Measured:
The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOT-2) assess motor proficiency in four areas; fine manual control, manual coordination, body coordination, and strength and agility. Each of the four areas are broken up into two subtest areas. Fine manual control assesses skills that require a high degree of precision like writing and drawing, which is not a focus in physical education curriculum and will not be considered when discussing the BOT-2 from this point on. Manual coordination assesses skills that focus on manipulating objects, reaching and grasping, with special attention paid to speed, dexterity and coordination of arms and hands. It is broken down into manual dexterity, reaching and grasping small objects, and upper limb coordination. Body coordination assesses motor skills that address balance and coordination of the upper and lower extremities. It is broken down into bilateral coordination; body control and movement of multiple limbs at the same time, and balance, specifically stability of the trunk, stasis and movement and use of visual cues. Finally, strength and agility assess motor skills like muscle strength of large muscle groups, motor speed, and motor skills involved in maintaining good body position while performing various locomotor skills like running and walking. This category is simply broken down into running speed, agility and strength. There is also a short form of the test that only assesses 14 items from each of the subtests.
Population(s) Designed For:
The BOT-2 was designed for individual assessment of adults and children ages 4 through 21 of both genders of varying race, socioeconomic status, and ability and disability levels specifically individuals with; ADD, ADHD, Behavioral Disturbance, Learning Disabled, Mild Mental Retardation, Speech/Language
Impairment, Developmental Delay, Autism and Aspergers, andwith norms specified for individuals with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD), high functioning Autism/Asperger’s Disorder, and mild to moderate Mental Retardation (MR).
Norm- and/or Criterion-Referenced:
The BOT-2 is a norm-referenced test in that it has standardized test procedures that allow for the collection of data on a variety of motor ability tests and then compares that data to that of the referenced standards, i.e.; scale scores, standard scores, confidence intervals, percentile ranks, age equivalents and descriptive categories, included with the test.
Technical (or Examiner’s) Manual(s):
Chapter one is an introduction and overview of the test, including both the long and short form. This includes a break down of all the goals addressed in the revision of the test like expanding coverage of fine motor and gross motor skills and extending norms through age 21. It also includes an explanation of the test structure and content. Finally, it wraps up by comparing the BOT-2 with the original BOTMP and explains uses for the BOT-2. Chapter two addresses general administration procedures, focusing on establishing and maintaining rapport with the test subject. It gives a detailed plan of how to prepare for administration of the test and explains the use of the administration easel. Chapter three breaks down how to complete the record form. This includes recording information, converting scores, making notes and computing subtest total point scores. It also explains in great detail how to fill out the cover page, the score profile page and the pairwise comparison page. Finally, this chapter explains how to fill out and score the short form of the test as well. Chapter four explains how to interpret the results of the test. This includes a highly detailed break down of how the scores were derived, specifically how these scores were standardize and then broken up into percentile ranks, age equivalents and descriptive categories. It then goes through how the test administrator should work through each interpretive step and is followed by a detailed sample case. Chapter five covers the development of the test. This focuses on content development, the testing of the test, and use of the test at a national level and standardization of the test. Chapter six addresses the reliability and validity of the test. Each component of reliability and validity is covered in great detail. Finally, the majority of the manual is made up of the appendixes and these include participants and contributors, norm tables, interpretive tables, and option teaching text to help the novice test administrator. 787
Standardization (Normative) Procedures:
The BOT-2 was nationally standardized on a representative sample of 1,520 examinees, aged 4 -21 years old, and tested at 239 different sites within 38 different states (Bruininks & Bruininks, 42). The norm sample was broken down into 12 age groups (4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13-14,15-16,17-18), with a greater emphasis placed on the younger ages because of the rapid development of motor skills that occur in that age population. The norm sample was randomized for sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and disability within each age group. Additionally, three clinical samples were identified for standardization; developmental coordination disorder (DCD), high functioning autism/Asperger’s Disorder, and mild to moderate mental retardation (MR), “these three conditions were chosen because of the significant motor deficits that accompany each condition, DCD is characterized by a marked impairment in the development of motor coordination that cannot be attributed to a general medical condition and which interferes with academic achievement (Bruininks & Bruininks, 44).”
Reliability:
The BOT-2 used internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Internal reliability is defined as, “a measure of the consistency of scores obtained across items within each subtest and composite (Bruininks & Bruininks, 51).” This was evaluated using the spilt half method, where each subtest was divided into two halves matching each half on content and difficulty. The Pearson correlation coefficient was computed and then adjusted by the Spearman-Brown formula, to estimate internal consistency, and composite reliabilities were computed using the stratified alpha method. All tests returned high scores ranging from the high .70’s to the mid .90’s asserting that the subtests are highly accurate for internal consistency. Additionally, standard errors of measure (SEM) were created “based on internal consistency reliability coefficients and represent the reliability of individual scores expressed in units of scale score for subtexts and standard scores for composites (Bruininks & Bruininks, 54).” So that when the SEM bands an individual’s score, there is a 68% chance that that is the individuals true score range. Finally the test-retest reliability was evaluated by testing the same individual over an interval of 7 to 42 days and expressed using the Pearson correlation showing that the reliability was very high and relatively consistent across all ages.
Validity (Describe procedures the authors used to determine validity):
The BOT-2 used test content, internal structure, clinical group differences, and relationships with other tests of motor skills to address validity. Test content validity, otherwise know as face validity, is how well an item on the test represents the behaviors it is intended to test, and was assessed using item fit analysis, developmental acquisition of motor skills and sex differences in performance. Because the BOT-2 is a revision of the BOTMP, part of the validity of the new test is wrapped up in the process of eliminating less-effective tests from the original. Via focus groups and surveys, items that scored a rating of poor or fair by more than 20% of the population sampled were evaluated for elimination. Nine items were evaluated for elimination and all but one, balance on preferred leg with eyes closed were removed. Next, test items were evaluated using a partial credit form of the Rasch model for item fit. This assessed whether or not a subtest measures only one criterion, if subtests were found to have a poor fit they were removed. Developmental acquisition of motor skills tested to see if individuals were gaining motor development proficiency with age as is correlated with development. Finally, sex differences in subtest performances were evaluated and any differences were consistent with research in motor development and therefore support claims of test content validity. Internal structure validity or content validity, assessed whether or not relationships within subtests fit expected patterns. The four motor-area categories were tested using factor analysis and showed a strong relationship, which supports internal structure validity. There are also strong validity measures that show the scores on the BOT-2 differentiate between the clinical groups studied; developmental coordination disorder (DCD), high function autism/Asperger’s disorder, and mild to moderate mental retardation (MR). Finally, the BOT-2 was evaluated against the BOTMP and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales. Both tests should moderate to strong correlations supporting claims of concurrent validity.
Objectivity or Inter Tester Reliability (Describe procedures the authors used to determine objectivity or Inter Tester Reliability):
The BOT-2 tested inter-rater reliability by testing 47 examinees with two different examiners during a single administration. One examiner would administer the test while the other watched but both scored the same individual. Their scores were then evaluated using the Pearson correlation and an adjusted correlation that accounted for any biasing effect. The inter-rate reliability coefficients were extremely high, with some tests scoring a .98 and .99, demonstrating an overall high level of inter-rate reliability.
Scoring procedures:
First the test administrator needs to establish the preferred throwing and drawing hand and the preferred kicking foot. Then they must explain the test so the examinee can complete the task. Next, on the BOT-2 Record Form, they record the raw score for each item as the test is administered. Note that some tests will require computation to record a raw score. Next, the examiner needs to convert the raw score to the point score using the correct corresponding conversion table in Appendix B, the score maybe a number or range. Then, the examiner adds up all of the points scored for individual subtest items for the subtest total point score. The examiner would be wise to list any information regarding the examinees behavior and effort levels during the test as well as distractions that may have influenced the outcome of the test. Next the examiner fills out the cover page starting with chronological age. After selecting from either combined or sex specific norms, and marking the appropriate box, the examiner will convert point scores into derived scores using the correct table for each subtest. This will give the correct scale score, record this score on the sheet. Then, the examiner will sum all subtest scale scores within given motor area, and record this on the appropriate line. Next, the examiner will find the standard score and percentile corresponding to each motor area and record this information on the appropriate line. The examiner will then calculate the total motor composite by adding the standard score for the four motor areas, enter the sum on the cover page, and then look up the sum in the correct table. The confidence interval for scale and standard scores is found by locating the band of error for the examinees age and recording the value on the cover page. Then the add or subtract that value from the higher or lower end, respectively, of the confidence interval and record both numbers to get the interval. Age equivalencies are found using the correct table and total point score for each subtest. The examiner may choose to also convert the scale and standard score to a descriptive category by again locating the appropriate table. Once all information is correctly recorded, the cover page is a very well organized and useful document. The examiner should also fill out the score profile page for a graphic representation of the examinee’s scale scores, standard scores, and confidence intervals. This is done by placing an X on the number for the examinee’s corresponding score and then marking the endpoints of the confidence intervals and filling in the space in between. If the examiner wants to compare the strengths and weaknesses of an examinee they must fill in the pairwise comparison form by entering the standard and scale scores in the correct boxes, subtracting the lower score from the higher score, and record this number, then determining if this number is significantly different by referring to the correct table. The short form follows a similar, though slightly less complicated process, for recording and converting scores.
Accompanying Curriculum, Teaching and/or Training Manuals/Materials: Not applicable.
Special or very unique considerations:
The test administrator will need a gym or all-purpose room to give the test. This room should only be used for testing purposed at the time the test is given. Additionally, the test administrator will need a table and two chairs that both the examiner and examinee can sit comfortably in. Make sure if testing a young child, 5 year old, the appropriate sized table and car may be too small for the test administrator so a clipboard would be very handy. The test administrator must also designate a running course, make sure to have permission to mark the floor and use only appropriate tape. Try to ensure at all times that the administration easel is in view of the examinee. Finally, when administering the short test only the throwing portion of the running course needs to be set up. If the test administrator takes the extra time to know exactly what does and does not need to be set up they can save valuable time and effort when preparing for the test.
Summary narrative of strengths/advantages of instrument/test/curriculum program:
The ability to choose between the long and short form depending on why the assessment is being given is a very nice feature. Also, the fact that the test covers such a variety of skills allows the test to provide a ton of information to the examiner. The test also allows for the examiner to find percentile rankings and age equivalents for the whole test, motor area or individual subtest. Finally, the ability to use the data to find an individual’s strengths and weaknesses using the pairwise comparison is ideal to for anyone trying to chart progress or evaluate an individual progress on a specific goal.
Weaknesses or concerns:
Even though the test is standardized the first instruction for each task is, “teach the task to the examinee.” This was intended to allow for flexibility given the wide age range and populations it can be used with but this can allow for huge amounts of instructor biases to influence the test and allows the test administrator to teach the test however they see fit. Additionally, some of the tests used do not apply to the physical education curriculum like the fine motor control test. Also, unless the whole kit is purchased the test administrator may not have certain equipment, even in a normal physical education environment, needed to administer the test like a pegboard. Finally, because of the time required to administer and score the regular BOT-2 and the multitude of tests administered a novice in the area of motor skills may shy away from such an initially overwhelming test, even though the option of the short form is presented.
Use in adapted physical education for individuals with disabilities:
The BOT-2 is a good test to be used for identification, placement and instructional decisions. It can be used for screening, using the short version, and identifying, using the long version, individuals with delayed motor patterns and individuals with disabilities. For example, an adapted physical educator could evaluate a student to see if they would qualify for adapted physical education services based on that student’s current level of performance on the test. Additionally, the results of the test can be used to influence decisions about the best placement for individual with disabilities in the general physical education environment or adapted physical education environment or combination of the two. Finally, the BOT-2 results based on an individual’s normative strengths and weakness can help the adapted physical educator to personalize annual IEP goals.