Bruinicks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition (BOT-2)

Full Name of Assessment:		Bruinicks- Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition (BOT-2)
Author, Publisher, Date:		Robert and Brett Bruinicks,  AGS publishing, 2005
Source:		Pearson	Pricing: $837
Brief description (purpose, domains, subscales, time to administer, space/equipment needs): The purpose of the test is 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 test has eight subscales: fine motor precision, fine motor integration, manual dexterity, bilateral coordination, balance, running speed and agility, upper limb coordination, strength.  The test takes 45-60 minutes to administer. Not much equipment is needed, however, sufficient space is needed to perform the many gross motor movements that are apart of the assessment. Equipment needed includes: manual, scoring information, blocks, cards, balls, and other various objects.
Scoring: Each subscale has its own scoring system. All the scores from the subscales are totaled into one score at the end. On any subscale, the scores could be between 24 and 52. Each score for a specific subtest is converted into a scaled score. The standard deviation for the scaled score is 5, with a mean of 15. The scaled score is then converted to a standard score. The mean for the standard score is 50, with a standard deviation of 10. Each subscale is the given a percentile rank, age equivalent, and descriptive category. The total composite score of all the subscales is given similar characteristics.
Psychometric properties (describe briefly; e.g. reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity, etc): Internal consistency reliability: mean of 3 age groups (4-7, 8-11, and 12-21) ranging from high .70s to low .80’s, table provided in manual with specific values Test-retest reliability: r-values for each subtest in 3 age groups given in manual, for subtest correlation   r = upper .70’s aged 4-12 and r = .69 aged 13-21. For composite correlation r = low .80’s aged 4-12 and .77 aged 13 – 21. Validity: Standard errors of measurement (SEM): included in manual Interrater reliability: r = .98 & .99 for subtests in Manual Coordination, Body Coordination, and Strength & Agility, r = .92 for Fine Manual Control Content validity: built into the test through multi step process. Included focus groups, comparison of items on the BOT-2 and the BOTMP, items underwent national tryout and standardization, Rasch analysis used to look at item fit, factor analysis used to look at subtest structure. Internal Structure: examined in two ways; examined correlations among subtest scale scores and composite standard scores. Correlations were generally small. (Inter- correlation coefficients are provided in the testing manual). They used confirmatory factor analysis to determine if there was support of the four motor area composites used on the BOT-2. The authors state there was a better fit with the four factor model in comparison to the two-factor model (gross & fine motor) used in the 1st edition of the test. Construct Validity: examined by comparing the scores of children in non-clinical group to those with diagnosis effecting motor performance. Involved three studies (children with developmental coordination disorder, high functioning autism/Aspergers,& mild to moderate mental retardation). Each of these three groups had significantly lower scores than the comparison group supporting the ability of the BOT-2 to distinguish between non-clinical and clinical group. Correlations between BOT-2 and BOTMP correlation on total composite was strong (adj r =. 80) with a moderate correlation was found for subtests. Correlation between BOT-2 and PDMS-2 (Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, 2nd edition) total motor composite adj r = 0.73, Correlation between BOT-2 & TVMS-R (Test of Visual-Motor Skills-Revised) was adj r = .74. It appears these studies support scores on the BOT -2 relate to scores of other measures which support the concurrent validity.
Citations/References (source at least 2 articles that use the tool or reports on psychometrics): Deitz, J.C., Kartin, D., & Kopp, K. (2007) Review of the Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency, (BOT-2).  Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 27(4), 87-102. Wuang, Y. P., Lin, Y. H., & Su, C. Y. (2009). Rasch analysis of the Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-in intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30(6), 1132-1144.
Comments/critique (include application to practice – settings, needs, populations): Time and cost.
Training or certification requirements:	No additional training, but examiners must have experience with standardized testing.