Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-second edition (BOTMP2)

Instrument Name: Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-second edition (BOTMP2)

Abbreviation: BOT-2

Points for Consideration:

Some challenges with administration in children with cognitive delays. Individual domains have Not been validated, and tests should Not be administered independently. Ability to show change over time against Normative data may vary by population.

Description of Tool:

The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-second edition (BOTMP2) is a ClinRO + PerfO used to assess the fine and gross motor abilities of children ages 4-21 years of age. The four domains are fine manual control, manual coordination, body coordination, and strength and agility. The 53-item test has eight subscales: fine motor precision, fine motor integration, manual dexterity, bilateral coordination, balance, running speed and agility, upper limb coordination, strength.

Minimum Qualification Required by COA Administrator: MA or BA

Comment:

Published in 2005 as a revised version of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP, 1978)
A 14-item BOT-2 Brief Form also exists as well as the revised 5-item BOT-2 Brief Form

Year: 2005

Objective of Development:

To measure gross and fine motor skills of children and youth

Population of Development: Age range (therapeutic indication):

4-21 years (All therapeutic indications)

Pediatric Population(s) in which COA has been used:

Mental Disorders; Nervous System Diseases; Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms; Nutritional and Metabolic Diseases; Virus diseases; Congenital, Hereditary, and Neonatal Diseases and Abnormalities; Neoplasms; Hemic and Lymphatic Diseases; Immune System Diseases; OtorhiNolaryngologic Diseases; Mental Disorders; Skin and Connective Tissue Diseases; Wounds and Injuries; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Digestive System Diseases; Respiratory Tract Diseases; Male Urogenital Diseases; Female Urogenital Diseases and Pregnancy Complications; Endocrine System Diseases; Eye Diseases; Cardiovascular Diseases

COA type:

Number of Items 53

Mode of Administration:

Data Collection Mode:

Time for Completion: 40 to 60 minutes (The administration can be divided into 2 sessions if needed.)

Response Scales: Verbal rating scale: Points are assigned according to the quality of performance

Summary of Scoring:

Available scores: Global score ranging from 0 to 58

Weighting: No

Score Interpretation: Higher score = More mature motor development

Evidence of Literature Review: Yes

Evidence of Instrument Review: Yes

Evidence of Clinical or Expert Input: Yes

Evidence of concept elicitation in target patient population: None identified

Evidence of a Saturation Grid: None identified

Evidence for Selection of Data Collection Method: None identified

Recall/Observation Period:

Evidence for Selection of Reponse Options: None identified

Evidence of cognitive interviewing of draft instrument in target patient population: None identified

Evidence of Preliminary Scoring of Items and Domains: Yes

Evidence related to respondent and administrator burden: Yes

Evidence of a Conceptual Framework: None identified

Evidence of an item-tracking matrix: None identified

Evidence related to item selection: Yes

Evidence of re-testing the final version: None identified

Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha): Yes

Evidence of internal consistency:

Inter-rater/ inter-interviewer reliability (kappa):

Deitz (2007)
Intra-rater reliability
- Pearson product moment correlation coefficients (corrected for variability of the Norm group; Cohen, Cohen, West and Aiken, 2003):
Total Motor composite: r ≥ 0.80 (for the 3 age groups)
Fine Manual Control, Manual Coordination, Body Coordination composites : r < 0.80 for 7 of the 9 correlations (for the 3 age groups) Fine Manual Control, Manual Coordination, Body Coordination related Subtests: r < 0.80 for 16 of the 18 correlations (for the 3 age groups) Strength and Agility (with knee push-ups/with full push-ups): r > 0.80 for all correlations (for the 3 age groups)
- Was a definition of stability applied to identify stable patients: No
- Time frame or interval between the two administrations: ranging from 7 to 42 days
- Population/Disease: Children and youth grouped according to age: 4-7 years (n=43), 8-12 years (n=44), 13-21 years (n=47)

Inter-rater reliability
- Pearson product moment correlation coefficients (corrected for variability of the Norm group; Cohen, Cohen, West and Aiken, 2003): adjusted r> 0.90 for all subtests and composites (except the Fine Motor Precision subtest: adjusted r= 0.86)
- Population/Disease: Children and youth (age range 4-21 years); n=47

Evidence of test-retest or inter-rater reliability: Yes

Concurrent validity (convergent, divergent):

Deitz (2007)
1-Measure: Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP)
- Correlation coefficient used: Not stated - corrected for variability of the Norm group (adjusted r)
- Results: p Not stated for all results
Total composites: r= 0.80
BOT-2 Fine Manual Control vs BOTMP Fine Motor composite: r= 0.60
BOT-2 Body Coordination vs BOTMP Gross Motor composite: adjusted r= 0.59
BOT-2 Strength and Agility (with knee push-ups) vs BOTMP Gross Motor composite: adjusted r= 0.69
BOT-2 Strength and Agility (with full push-ups) vs BOTMP Gross Motor composite: adjusted r= 0.73
- Population/Disease: Children aged 6-14 years; n=49

2-Measure: Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, Second Edition (PDMS-2)
- Correlation coefficient used: Not stated - corrected for variability of the Norm group (adjusted r)
- Results: p Not stated for all results
BOT-2 Total Motor Composite vs PDMS-2 Total Motor Quotient: adjusted r= 0.73
BOT-2 Fine Manual Coordination vs PDMS-2 Fine Motor Quotient: adjusted r= 0.51
BOT-2 Body Coordination vs PDMS-2 Gross Motor Quotient: adjusted r= 0.65
BOT-2 Strength and Agility with full push-ups vs PDMS-2 Gross Motor Quotient: adjusted r= 0.75
- Population/Disease: Children aged 4-5 years; n=38

3-Measure: Test of Visual-Motor Skills-Revised (TVMS-R)
- Correlation coefficient used: Not stated - corrected for variability of the Norm group (adjusted r)
- Results: BOT-2 Fine Motor Integration subset vs TVMS-R Visual-Motor Skills composite: adjusted r= 0.74; p Not stated
- Population/Disease: Children aged 4-13 years; n=56

Known-group validity:

Deitz (2007)
KNown-groups validity
- Measure/Groups of patients:
- Developmental coordination disorder group (n= 50)
- Mild to moderate mental retardation group (n= 66)
- High-functioning autism or Asperger's disorder group (n= 45)
- Non-clinical group (n Not stated)
- A priori hypotheses: Not stated
- Were hypotheses confirmed: Not applicable
- Results: Method Not stated. BOT-2 scores were significantly lower in each clinical group compared to its Non-clinical group (matched by age range with clinical groups); p< 0.001 - Population/Disease: Children 4-21 years of age; total n Not stated Wright (2005) KNown-groups validity - Measure/Groups of patients: Children previously treated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (n= 99) vs Comparison subjects without disease (n= 89) - A priori hypotheses: The authors hypothesized that children and youth who had ALL would have poorer balance than subjects in the comparison group - Were hypotheses confirmed: Yes - Results: T-test. Balance subtest scores on the BOTMP were lower (t= -6.893; p< 0.001) for the ALL group (sample mean 10.55, SD 5.89, range 1–28) than for the comparison group (sample mean 16.30, SD 5.54, range 1–29). - Population/Disease: Children and youth with previously treated ALL (mean age 12.1 (SD 4.9); age range 5.1-25.2 years) and comparison subjects (mean age 12.2 (SD 5.2); age range 5.1–31.5); n= 188

Evidence of Translatability Assessment: None identified

Evidence related to missing data: None identified

Evidence for Selection of Recall Period: None identified

Evidence of Administration Instructions and Training Provided: Yes

Evidence of concurrent validity: Yes

Evidence of known-groups validity: Yes

Evidence of ability to detect change over time: None identified

Ability to detect change (Responsiveness):

None identified

Evidence of responder thresholds: None identified

Bruininks, R. H., & Bruininks, D. B. Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, 2nd ed. 2005. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessment

Brown T. Structural Validity of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency – Second Edition (BOT-2) Subscales and Composite Scales. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention. 2019. 323-353 (Full text article: http://pdf-s3.xuebalib.com:1262/6gg1vSATRgcr.pdf)

Deitz, J. C., Kartin, D., & Kop p, K. Review of the Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency, (BOT-2). Physical & occupational therapy in pediatrics. 2007. 27(4), 87-102 (PubMed abstract: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18032151)

Wuang, Y.-P., Lin, Y.-H., & Su, C.-Y. Rasch analysis of the Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-in intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2009. 30(6), 1132-1144 (PubMed abstract: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18032151)

See (PubMed results: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=(((((BOT-2%5BTitle%2FAbstract%5D))%20AND%20(%22Bruininks-Oseretsky%20Test%20of%20Motor%20Proficiency%22%5BTitle%2FAbstract%5D))%20AND%20(%222005%22%5BDate%20-%20Publication%5D%20%3A%20%223000%22%5BDate%20-%20Publication%5D))))

Wright MJ, Galea V, Barr RD. Proficiency of balance in children and youth who have had acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Phys Ther. 2005 Aug;85(8):782-90 [Abstract: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16048425/#:~:text=Results%3A%20The%20children%20and%20youth,0.86%20and%200.97%2C%20respectively).]

Yes

Mepsevii, Vestronidase Alfa-Vjbk (FDA, 2017)
Results:
In Study 301, motor function, forced vital capacity, and visual acuity were assessed after 24 weeks of MEPSEVII treatment and measured against pre-specified minimal important differences. The extremely small population of patients with MPS VII globally necessitated the enrollment of all patients able to participate resulting in a highly heterogeneous group. Clinical endpoints were Not assessable in some patients due to their extent of disease, age or level of cognition. Repeated assessments of the six minute walk test (6MWT) were feasible in ten of 12 patients and are described further below. Of the three patients who improved on their 6MWT, two also were Noted to have improvement in balance and gross motor proficiency as assessed by the Bruininks Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOT-2).

Mepsevii, Vestronidase Alfa (EMA, 2018)
Results:
Key Secondary Endpoints: Multi-Domain Clinical Responder Index (MDRI) and 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT)
The key secondary endpoint was the multi-domain clinical responder index (MDRI) score consisting of six domains [six-minute walk test (6MWT), forced vital capacity (FVC), shoulder flexion, visual acuity, Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOT-2) fine motor and gross motor function] after 24 weeks of treatment and fatigue total score as measured by the Pediatric Quality of Life Multidimensional Fatigue Scale (PedsQL). For the clinical (secondary) endpoints, beneficial responses were observed although Not in all patients. After 24 weeks of vestronidase alfa treatment in Study 301, the overall MDRI results, both prespecified and post-hoc (6 MDRI domains plus fatigue domain) analyses, were positive with an increase of +0.5 domains (p=0.0527) and +0.8 domains (p=0.0433) including fatigue, respectively (ttest). For patients who continued into Study 202, a mean (SD) improvement in MDRI was observed at Week 24 (+0.7 [1.01] domains) and at Week 48 (+0.9 [1.30] domains).

Original: English for the USA

Translations:
German for Germany
Korean

German
Blank, R., Jenetzky, E., & Vinçon, S. Bruininks-Oseretzky Test der motorischen Fähigkeiten, Zweite Ausgabe, Handbuch. 2014. Frankfurt am Main: Pearson

Vinçon S, Green D, Blank R, Jenetzky E. Ecological validity of the German Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency - 2nd Edition. Hum Mov Sci. 2017 Jun;53:45-54 (PubMed abstract: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27832925/)

Authors:
Bruininks, R. H., & Bruininks, D. B

Contact:
Pearson Clinical Assessment contact form: https://support.pearson.com/usclinical/s/contactsupport

research.licensing@pearson.com

Copyright:
BOT-2 © 2005 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

CoU:
Upon qualification the test may be used for research or clinical use by purchasing the test materials from Pearson Catalog (https://www.pearsonclinical.com/therapy/products/100000648/bruininks-oseretsky-test-of-motor-proficiency-second-edition-bot-2.html?origsearchtext=BOT-2#tab-details). For further information, please contact directly, Pearson Clinical Assessment

BOT-2 webpage: https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Motor-Sensory/Bruininks-Oseretsky-Test-of-Motor-Proficiency-%7C-Second-Edition/p/100000648.html#tab-details

Can be ordered on the Pearson website: https://www.pearsonclinical.com/therapy/products/100000648/bruininks-oseretsky-test-of-motor-proficiency-second-edition-bot-2.html?origsearchtext=BOT-2