Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition (2023)

Primary Image

Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition (1)
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition

share

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn Logo linkedin
  • email

Last Updated

Purpose

The purpose of the BOT-2 is to provide a comprehensive overview of fine and gross motor skills in children and young adults within school age-range.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym BOT-2

Area of Assessment

Balance – Vestibular
Balance – Non-vestibular
Coordination
Dexterity
Functional Mobility
Gait
Strength
Upper Extremity Function
Vestibular

Assessment Type

Performance Measure

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$898.00

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Pediatric + Adolescent Rehabilitation

Populations

Pediatric Disorders

(Video) Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency Second Edition (BOT2)

Key Descriptions

  • The BOT-2 measures fine and gross motor development in 4 motor area composites with 8 subtests comprised of 53 items in the categories listed below:
  • Fine Manual Control
    A) Fine Motor Precision (7 items)
    B) Fine Motor Integration (8 items)
  • Manual Coordination
    A) Manual Dexterity (5 items)
    B) Upper-limb Coordination (7 items)
  • Body Coordination
    A) Bilateral Coordination (7 items)
    B) Balance (9 items)
  • Strength and Agility
    A) Running Speed and Agility (5 items)
    B) Strength (5 items)
  • Administration instructions can be found in the test kit's Administration Easel. The BOT-2 offers the following administration options:
    A) Complete Form: the preferred administration option, as it has been found to be most reliable and comprehensive measure of motor proficiency
    B) Short Form: for screening or program evaluation
    C) Select Composites: administered based on individual needs
    D) Select Subtests: administered based on individual needs
  • For each item, the raw score is determined according to the Administration Easel, which can include a number of points, a number of correct activities performed, or a number of seconds, amongst others. Raw scores are then converted to point scores using information provided on the Record Form.
  • For each subtest, total point scores are computed by adding up all the point scores. The norm tables provided in the manual are then used to convert the point scores into scale scores for each subset, and then to obtain standard scores and percentile ranks for motor-area composites and finally for the total motor composite.
  • Confidence intervals, age equivalents, and descriptive categories can also be extracted from the tables based on point, scale, and standard scores.
  • The Score Profile page of the Record Form allows for a graphic display of the scale scores, standard scores, and confidence intervals.
  • The Pairwise Comparisons page compares performance on motor areas composites and subtests to discover strengths and weaknesses.
  • Scores for the Complete Form and for the Short Form are reported as
    total point scores, standard scores, or percentile ranks (Deitz, Kartin, & Kopp, 2007).
  • Minimum and maximum scores are as follows:
    A) Total point scores: Complete Form: 0 to 320; Short Form: 0 to 88
    B) Standard scores: 20 to 80
    C) Percentile ranks: <1 to >99

Number of Items

53

Equipment Required

  • Manual
  • Examinee booklet
  • Scoring transparency
  • Administration easel
  • Record forms
  • Blocks (15)
  • Cards (50)
  • Pegboard
  • Pegs (30)
  • Pennies (20)
  • Penny pad
  • Red pencil
  • Shuttle block
  • Target
  • Balance beam
  • Box
  • Knee pad
  • Scissors
  • String
  • Tennis balls
  • Stopwatch
  • Tape measure
  • Two Chairs
  • Table
  • Tape

Time to Administer

15-60minutes

The complete form takes 40-60 minutes to administer, with 10 additional minutes to prepare the testing area. The short form takes 15-20 minutes to administer, with an additional 5 minutes to set up the testing area.

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by University of Illinois at Chicago Master of Science in Occupational Therapy studentsRuxandra Drasga,Andrea Gurga,and Anne McNamara.

Body Part

Lower Extremity

ICF Domain

Body Function
Activity

Measurement Domain

Motor

Professional Association Recommendation

There are currently no professional association recommendations.

Considerations

  • The administrator selects the most relevant and useful form, i.e., complete form, short form, composites, subtests. The short formoverviews the client’s fine and gross motor functioning. The complete form is the most reliableand should be used to determine diagnoses or eligibility for services (Bruininks, 2005).

  • For children with a discrepancy between gross motor and fine motor abilities, overall score may be within the norm due to high grossor fine motor performance. However, this may disqualify the child from eligibility for services, even if the child should benefit from them (Deitz, Kartin, & Kopp, 2007).

  • Consider the ecological validity of the BOT-2 in different cultures. Vincon, Green, Blank, and Jenetzky (2016) studied the ecological validity of the BOT-2 with German children. Tasks that more closely resembled everyday tasks were better predictors of real world performance. Not all activities wererelevant to German children.

  • BOT-2 ASSIST software simplifies the scoring process and eliminates human error.

Pediatric Disorders

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Individuals aged 4-21: (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005; n = 1,520; normative sample)

  • SEM = 2 (scale score); SEM=3 to 3.5 (composite standard score)

Intellectual Disabilities (ID): (Wuang & Su, 2009; n = 100; Mean Age = 82.9 months (24.9); Severity classification: Mild ID (IQ = [55,70]),n = 64; Moderate to Severe ID (IQ = [25,54]), n = 36; Taiwanese sample)

Subtests

Standard Error of Measurements (SEM)

Fine manual precision

0.42

Fine motor integration

0.39

Manual dexterity

0.51

Upper limb coordination

0.73

Bilateral coordination

0.65

Balance

0.49

Running speed and agility

0.49

Strength

0.63

Composites

Standard Error of Measurements (SEM)

Fine manual control

0.58

Manual coordination

0.66

Body coordination

0.80

Strength and agility

0.80

Total

1.79

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Intellectual Disabilities (ID): (Wuang & Su, 2009)

Subtests

Minimum Detectable Change (MDC)

Fine manual precision

0.98

Fine motor integration

0.67

Manual dexterity

1.19

Upper limb coordination

1.70

Bilateral coordination

1.52

Balance

1.14

Running speed and agility

1.14

Strength

1.47

Composites

Minimum Detectable Change (MDC)

Fine manual control

1.36

Manual coordination

1.54

Body coordination

1.87

Strength and agility

1.87

Total

4.18

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Intellectual Disabilities (ID): (Wuang & Su, 2009)

Subtests

Minimal Important Difference (MID)

Fine manual precision

0.72

Fine motor integration

0.88

Manual dexterity

1.47

Upper limb coordination

1.61

Bilateral coordination

1.11

Balance

0.57

Running speed and agility

0.59

Strength

1.73

Composites

Minimal Important Difference (MID)

Fine manual control

0.93

Manual coordination

2.55

Body coordination

1.65

Strength and agility

1.39

Total

6.53

Normative Data

Norm Sample by Age and Sex (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

Age

Sex

Total

Female

Male

N

%

N

%

N

4

100

50.0

100

50

200

5

100

50.0

100

50

200

6

55

50.0

55

50

110

7

57

51.8

53

48.2

110

8

55

50.0

55

50

110

9

55

50.0

55

50

110

10

61

50.8

59

49.2

120

11

53

48.2

57

51.8

110

12

58

52.7

52

47.3

110

13-14

61

50.8

59

49.2

120

15-16

55

50.0

55

50

110

17-21

55

50.0

55

50

110

Total

765

50.3

755

49.7

1520

US Populationa

48.9

51.1

a US Population data obtained from Current Population Survey, March 2001 [machine readable data file] conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Norm Sample by Age and Race/Ethnicity (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

Hispanic

Race/Ethnicity

African American

White

Othera

Total

Age

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

4

31

15.5

41

20.5

116

58

12

6

200

5

27

13.5

39

19.5

123

61.5

11

5.5

200

6

19

17.3

22

20

61

55.5

8

7.3

110

7

16

14.5

24

21.8

63

57.3

7

6.4

110

8

17

15.5

18

16.4

67

60.9

8

7.3

110

9

17

15.5

19

17.3

69

62.7

5

4.5

110

10

20

16.7

19

15.8

73

60.8

8

6.7

120

11

18

16.4

16

14.5

66

60

10

9.1

110

12

16

14.5

23

20.9

65

59.1

6

5.5

110

13-14

19

15.8

21

17.5

72

60

8

6.7

120

15-16

16

14.5

18

16.4

68

61.8

8

7.3

110

17-21

14

12.7

19

17.3

72

65.5

5

4.5

110

Total

230

15.1

279

18.4

915

60.2

96

6.3

1520

US Populationb

15.7

17

61.9

5.4

a Includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asian American, Pacific Islanders, and all other groups not classified as African American, Hispanic, or White

b US Population data obtained from Current Population Survey, March 2001 [machine readable data file] conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Norm Sample by Age and Mother's Education Level (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

Mother's Educationa

High School Graduate or Less

1-3 Years of College

4-Year Degree or Higher

Total

Age

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

4

85

42.5

67

33.5

48

24.0

200

5

89

44.5

63

31.5

48

24.0

200

6

52

47.3

29

26.4

29

26.4

110

7

49

44.5

31

28.2

30

27.3

110

8

51

46.4

31

28.2

28

25.5

110

9

48

43.6

36

32.7

26

23.6

110

10

54

45.0

33

27.5

33

27.5

120

11

45

40.9

40

36.4

25

22.7

110

12

49

44.5

35

31.8

26

23.6

110

13-14

55

45.8

38

31.7

27

22.5

120

15-16

54

49.1

34

30.9

22

20.0

110

17-21

52

47.3

27

24.5

31

28.5

110

Total

683

44.9

464

30.5

373

24.5

1520

US Populationb

47.5

30.0

22.5

a If mother's or female guardian's education level was not reported, father's or male guardian's education level was used.

b US Population data obtained from Current Population Survey, March 2001 [machine readable data file] conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Norm Sample by Age and Geographic Region (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

Geographic Location

Northeast

North Central

South

West

Total

Age

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

4

47

23.5

78

39.0

36

18.0

39

19.5

200

5

54

27.0

68

34.0

27

13.5

51

25.5

200

6

19

17.3

28

25.5

28

25.5

35

31.8

110

7

14

12.7

36

32.7

28

25.5

32

29.1

110

8

19

17.3

36

32.7

32

29.1

23

20.9

110

9

22

20.0

41

37.3

20

18.2

27

24.5

110

10

16

13.3

39

32.5

35

29.2

30

25.0

120

11

21

19.1

38

34.5

27

24.5

24

21.8

110

12

20

18.2

34

30.9

27

24.5

29

26.4

110

13-14

11

9.2

41

34.2

36

30.0

32

26.7

120

15-16

13

11.8

36

32.7

43

39.1

18

16.4

110

17-21

12

10.9

41

37.3

39

35.5

18

16.4

110

Total

268

17.6

516

33.9

378

24.9

358

23.6

1520

US Populationa

19.2

22.0

34.7

24.1

a US Population data obtained from Current Population Survey, March 2001 [machine readable data file] conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Norm Sample by Mother's Education Level and Race / Ethnicity (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

Race / Ethnicity

Mother's Educationa

High School Graduate or Less

1-3 Years of College

4-Year Degree or Higher

Total

Sample

U.S. Populationb

Sample

U.S. Populationb

Sample

U.S. Populationb

N

%

%

N

%

%

N

%

%

N

African American

99

43.0

53.5

73

31.7

33.7

58

25.2

12.8

230

Hispanic

211

75.6

74.5

45

16.1

18.8

23

8.2

6.6

279

White

335

36.6

39.7

328

35.8

32.3

252

27.5

27.9

915

Otherc

38

39.6

42.8

18

18.8

25.1

40

41.7

32.0

96

Total

683

44.9

47.5

464

30.5

30.0

373

24.5

22.5

1520

a If mother's or female guardian's education level was not reported, father's or male guardian's education level was used.

b US Population data obtained from Current Population Survey, March 2001 [machine readable data file] conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Norm Sample by Educational Classification or Diagnosis, Aged6 to18 (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

Sample

U.S. School-Age Populationa

Educational Classification or Diagnosis

N

%

%

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

49

3.2

4.0b

Emotional/Behavioral Disturbance

16

1.1

0.9

Specific Learning Disability

54

3.6

5.4

Mental Retardation

21

1.4

1.0

Development Delayc

9

0.6

0.4

Speech/Language Impairment

57

3.8

2.1

Other Impairmentd

17

1.1

1.5

a Data obtained from the Twenty-sixth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act; United States Department of Education, Office if Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2004. Retrieved from https://ideadata.org/tables26th/ar_aa7.htm

b Data obtained from Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. (December 1999). Retrieved from http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/home.html

(Video) BOT2 (Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency) - Full Version

c Ages 6-9

d Includes hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, other health impairments, visual impairments, multiple disabilities, autism, and traumatic brain injury

Norm Sample by Age and Special Education Status (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

Special Education Status

Sample

U.S. School-Age Population a

Age

N

%

%

4

19

9.5

6.3

5

21

10.5

6.6

6

11

10.0

8.4

7

13

11.8

9.6

8

11

10.0

10.9

9

17

15.5

11.7

10

13

10.8

12.4

11

12

10.9

13.1

12

16

14.6

13.5

13-14

16

13.3

13

15-16

10

9.1

11.6

17-18

9

13.4

7.1

Total

168

11.4

10.4

a Data obtained from the Twenty-sixth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act; United States Department of Education, Office if Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.ideadata.org/tables26th/ar_aa7.html

Test/Retest Reliability

Individuals aged 4 to21: (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

Age Range

Test-Retest Reliability

Subtest Ages 4-7

Excellent (ICC=0.78)

Composite Ages 4-7

Excellent (ICC=0.83)

Subtest Ages 8-12

Excellent (ICC=0.76)

Composite Ages 8-12

Excellent (ICC=0.82)

Subtest Ages 13-21

Adequate (ICC=0.69)

Composite Ages 13-21

Excellent (ICC=0.77)

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang & Su, 2009)

Subtests

Test-Retest Reliability

Fine Manual Precision

Excellent (ICC=0.96)

Fine Motor Integration

Excellent (ICC=0.98)

Manual Dexterity

Excellent (ICC=0.92)

Upper Limb Coordination

Excellent (ICC=0.88)

Bilateral Coordination

Excellent (ICC=0.96)

Balance

Excellent (ICC=0.99)

Running Speed and Agility

Excellent (ICC=0.97)

Strength

Excellent (ICC=0.96)

Composites

Test-Retest Reliability (ICC)

Fine Manual Control

Excellent (ICC=0.99)

Manual Coordination

Excellent (ICC=0.98)

Body Coordination

Excellent (ICC=0.99)

Strength and Agility

Excellent (ICC=0.99)

Total

Excellent (ICC=0.99)

Remote Australian Aboriginal Communities BOT-2 Short Form: (Lucas et al. 2013; n = 30; age =[7,9])

  • Adequate for raw score (ICC = 0.62)

  • Adequate forstandard score (ICC = 0.73)

  • Adequate for percentile rank (ICC = 0.71)

Subtest

Subtest item

Test-retest ICC

Fine Motor Precision

Drawing lines through paths - crooked

Poor (ICC = 0.13)

Folding paper

Excellent (ICC = 0.76)

Fine Motor Integration

Copying a square

Poor (ICC = 0.00)

Copying a star

Poor (ICC = 0.25)

Manual Dexterity

Transferring pennies

Adequate (ICC = 0.48)

Bilateral Coordination

Jumping in place - same sides synchronized

Poor (ICC=-0.066)

Tapping feet and fingers - same sides synchronized

Poor (ICC = -0.032)

Balance

Walking forward on a line

N/A

Standing on one leg on a balance beam - eyes open

Poor (ICC = 0.17)

Running Speed and Agility

One-legged stationary hop

Poor (ICC = 0.25)

Upper Limb Coordination

Dropping and catching a ball- both hands

Poor (ICC = -0.041)

Dribbling a ball- alternating hands

Poor (ICC = 0.023)

Strength

Knee push ups

Poor (ICC = 0.31)

Sit ups

Poor (ICC = 0.26)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Individuals aged 4 to21: (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

  • Excellent interrater reliability(ICC = 0.98)

Remote Australian Aboriginal Communities BOT-2 Short Form: (Lucas, et al. 2013; n = 30; age = [7,9])

  • Excellent for raw score (ICC = 0.92), standard score (0.89), and percentile rank (0.88).

Subtest

Subtest item

Inter-rater ICC

Fine Motor Precision

Drawing lines through paths- crooked

Adequate (ICC=0.66)

Folding paper

Excellent (ICC=0.92)

Fine Motor Integration

Copying a square

Excellent (ICC=0.89)

Copying a star

Excellent (ICC=0.80)

Manual Dexterity

Transferring pennies

Excellent (ICC=1.00)

Bilateral Coordination

Jumping in place - same sides synchronized

Poor (ICC=0.34)

Tapping feet and fingers- same sides synchronized

N/A

Balance

Walking forward on a line

N/A

Standing on one leg on a balance beam - eyes open

Adequate (ICC=0.54)

Running Speed and Agility

One-legged stationary hop

Adequate (ICC=0.49)

Upper-limb coordination

Dropping and catching a ball- both hands

Excellent (ICC=1.00)

Dribbling a ball- alternating hands

Excellent (ICC=0.85)

Strength

Knee push ups

Excellent (ICC=0.87)

Sit ups

Excellent (ICC=0.86)

Internal Consistency

Individuals aged 4 to21: (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005)

Age Range

Internal Consistency (α)

Ages 4-7

Excellent (α =0.82)

Ages 8-11

Excellent (α =0.83)

Ages 12-21

Excellent (α =0.86)

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang & Su, 2009)

Subtests

Internal Consistency (α)

Fine Manual Precision

Excellent (α =0.81)

Fine Motor Integration

Excellent (α =0.83)

Manual Dexterity

Excellent (α =0.83)

Upper Limb Coordination

Excellent (α =0.87)

Bilateral Coordination

Excellent (α =0.87)

Balance

Excellent (α =0.85)

Running Speed and Agility

Excellent (α =0.87)

Strength

Excellent (α =0.85)

Composites

Internal Consistency (α)

Fine Manual Control

Excellent (α =0.88)

Manual Coordination

Excellent (α =0.88)

Body Coordination

Excellent (α =0.87)

Strength and Agility

Excellent (α =0.88)

Total

Excellent (α =0.92)

Construct Validity

Convergent Validity:

Typically Developing Children: (Lane & Brown, 2015; n = 50; age =[7,16])

  • Excellent correlation between BOT-2 total motor composite and MABC-2 (Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2) total test score for children aged11 to16 (rho = 0.80, p < 0.01)

  • Poor correlation between BOT-2 fine motor components (fine manual control, manual coordination, and associated subscales) and MABC-2 fine motor components (manual dexterity and aiming & catching) for children aged7 to10

Spearman’s rho (ρ) correlations between the BOT-2 fine motor components and the MABC-2 fine motor components

(Video) BOT-2 Assessment

7-10 year olds

11-16 year olds

MABC-2

MABC-2

Variable

Manual Dexterity Component

Aiming & Catching Component

Manual Dexterity Component

Aiming & Catching Component

BOT-2 Subscales

Fine Motor Precision

Poor

(ρ = -0.09)

Poor

(ρ = -0.15)

Excellent

(ρ = 0.61**)

Poor

(ρ = 0.13)

Fine Motor Integration

Poor

(ρ = 0.3)

Poor

(ρ = -0.13)

Poor

(ρ = 0.03)

Poor

(ρ = 0.06)

Manual Dexterity

Poor

(ρ = 0.03)

Poor

(ρ = -0.01)

Adequate

(ρ = 0.59**)

Poor

(ρ = 0.12)

Upper Limb Coordination

Poor

(ρ = -0.05)

Poor

(ρ = 0.17)

Poor

(ρ = -0.06)

Excellent

(ρ = 0.63**)

Composite scales

Fine Manual Control

Poor

(ρ = 0.09)

Poor

(ρ = -0.15)

Adequate

(ρ = 0.34)

Poor

(ρ = 0.09)

Manual Coordination

Poor

(ρ = -0.02)

Poor

(ρ = 0.13)

Adequate

(ρ = 0.44*)

Adequate

(ρ = 0.38)

Notes: *Significant at the 0.05 level;**Significant at the 0.01 level.

Spearman’s rho (ρ) correlations between the BOT-2 gross motor components and the MABC-2 gross motor components

7-10 year olds

11-16 year olds

MABC-2

MABC-2

Variable

Balance Component

Aiming & Catching Component

Balance Component

Aiming & Catching Component

BOT-2Subscales

Bilateral Coordination

Poor

(ρ = -0.1)

Poor

(ρ = -0.08)

Poor

(ρ = 0.15)

Poor

(ρ = 0.26)

Balance

Poor

(ρ = 0.11)

Adequate

(ρ = 0.35)

Adequate

(ρ = 0.31)

Poor

(ρ = 0.01)

Running Speed & Agility

Poor

(ρ = 0.14)

Poor

(ρ = 0.14)

Adequate

(ρ = 0.45*)

Poor

(ρ = 0.25)

Strength

Adequate

(ρ = 0.37)

Poor

(ρ = -0.1)

Adequate

(ρ = 0.51*)

Adequate

(ρ = 0.44*)

BOT-2 Composite Scales

Body Coordination

Poor

(ρ = 0.13)

Poor

(ρ = 0.17)

Poor

(ρ = 0.29)

Poor

(ρ = 0.03)

Strength & Agility

Adequate

(ρ = 0.32)

Poor

(ρ = 0.17)

Adequate

(ρ = 0.45*)

Adequate

(ρ = 0.44*)

Notes: *Significant at the 0.05 level;**Significant at the 0.01 level.

Responsiveness

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang & Su, 2009)

Subtests

Effect Size (ES)

Fine Manual Precision

Large Change (ES = 0.78)

Fine Motor Integration

Moderate to Large Change (ES = 0.63)

Manual Dexterity

Moderate Change (ES = 0.48)

Upper Limb Coordination

Moderate to Large Change (ES = 0.69)

Bilateral Coordination

Large Change (ES = 0.84)

Balance

Moderate Change (ES = 0.23)

Running Speed and Agility

Moderate to Large Change (ES = 0.66)

Strength

Moderate to Large Change (ES = 0.70)

Composites

Effect Size (ES)

Fine Manual Control

Moderate to Large Change (ES = 0.65)

Manual Coordination

Moderate to Large Change (ES = 0.64)

Body Coordination

Moderate Change (ES = 0.45)

Strength and Agility

Large Change (ES = 0.76)

Total

Moderate to Large Change (ES = 0.67)

Subtests

Standardized Response Mean (SRM)

Fine Manual Precision

0.72

Fine Motor Integration

0.65

Manual Dexterity

0.76

Upper Limb Coordination

0.79

Bilateral Coordination

0.78

Balance

0.27

Running Speed and Agility

0.54

Strength

0.65

Composites

Standardized Response Mean (SRM)

Fine Manual Control

0.56

Manual Coordination

0.73

Body Coordination

0.31

Strength and Agility

0.63

Total

0.54

(Video) BOT-2 (Manual Dexterity, Bilateral Coordination, Upper Limb Coordination)

Bibliography

Bruininks, B. D. (2005). Using the BOT-2 to identify and support students with fine and gross motor difficulties. BOT-2 webinar presented on September 21, 2015. Retreived from http://downloads.pearsonclinical. com/videos/BOT-2-092115/BOT-2-Webinar-Handout-092115.pdf

Bruininks, R., & Bruininks, B. (2005). Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson.

Deitz, J. C., Kartin, D., & Kopp, K. (2007). Review of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition (BOT-2). Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 27(4), 87-102. http://doi.org/10.1300/J006v27n04_06

Lane, H. & Brown, T. (2015). Convergent validity of two motor skills tests used to assess school-age children. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 22, 161-172. http://doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2014.969308

Lucas, B. R., Latimer, J., Doney, R., Ferreira, M., Adams, R., Hawkes, G., Elliot, E. J. (2013). The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency - Short Form is reliable in children living in remote Australian Aboriginal communities. BMC Pediatrics, 13(135). http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-13-135

Vincon, S., Green, D., Blank, R., & Jenetzky, E. (2016). Ecological validity of the German Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency - 2nd Edition. Human Movement Science. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2016.10.005

Wuang, Y. P. & Su, C. Y. (2009). Reliability and responsiveness of the Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-Second Edition in children with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 847–855. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2008.12.002

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed nearly 300 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Nov 1, 2021

6 Minute Push Test

read more

updated Aug 21, 2021

Nine-Hole Peg Test

read more

FAQs

How long does the bot-2 assessment take? ›

Time to Administer

The complete form takes 40-60 minutes to administer, with 10 additional minutes to prepare the testing area. The short form takes 15-20 minutes to administer, with an additional 5 minutes to set up the testing area.

Is the bot-2 valid? ›

The BOT-2 has appropriate validity and reliability as well as high sensitivity and characteristic in preschool children. The teachers and mentors can use the BOT-2 test to evaluate and screen children aged four to seven years. The BOT-2 can be used to evaluate motor skills and diagnose children with DCD.

How do you score the bot-2 assessment? ›

This time you will use the total point score from each subtest and match it with the designated age

What are the subtests in the bot-2? ›

The BOT-2 consists of both a Complete and Short Form, and is comprised of four composites with eight subtests, including Fine Manual Control, Manual Coordination, Body Coordination, and Strength and Agility.

What age range is the bot-2 for? ›

BOT-2 measures fine and gross motor proficiency, with subtests that focus on stability, mobility, strength, coordination, and object manipulation. The test is tailored to school-aged children and young adults among the ages of 4-21 years, who have varying motor control abilities ranging from normal to mild or moderate.

How often can you retest with the bot-2? ›

The minimum recommended interval for reassessment with the BOT-2 is 3 months or more. The test-retest data gathered during development of the BOT-2 show minimal mean differences with an average retest interval of 19-20 days, and average test score differences in the test-retest study are well below the SEms.

What does the bot 2 short form assess? ›

The Bruininks-Oseretsky test [33], or the so-called BOT-2 test, has been designed to assess fine and gross motor skills (motor skill efficiency) of children 4 through 21 years of age. This test has a very broad application in physical therapy, adaptive physical exercise, and even in science.

What is the average standard score for the bot-2? ›

Results: The BOT-2 SF provided a statistically significantly lower standard score x = 45.87 (±5.41) compared to the BOT-2 CF x = 47.57 (±8.29) p < 0.05 with middle effect size value, Hays ω2 = 0.09.

Who can administer the bot-2? ›

With a well-trained facilitator in a professional role (i.e., professional facilitator, certified assistant), subtests from the BOT–2 could successfully be administered with a remote examiner and all subtest and composite scores could be derived.

What is the confidence interval in bot-2? ›

When a standard score or a scale score is reported, the corresponding 90% confidence interval is presented in parentheses.

Videos

1. BOT-2 Overview
(Warren McAdams, PT, DPT)
2. 5 Pediatric Assessment Overview - BOT2, Peabody, Sensory Profile, SPM, and VMI
(OT Rex)
3. Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOT-2)
(Clara Johnson)
4. BOT-2 assessment demonstration
(Mariah Long)
5. Bruininks-oseretsky Test of Motor proficiency, Second Edition (BOT2) 분반 002반
(인지활동연구소)
6. Bruininks Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency
(shango066)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Horacio Brakus JD

Last Updated: 12/06/2022

Views: 5861

Rating: 4 / 5 (71 voted)

Reviews: 94% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Horacio Brakus JD

Birthday: 1999-08-21

Address: Apt. 524 43384 Minnie Prairie, South Edda, MA 62804

Phone: +5931039998219

Job: Sales Strategist

Hobby: Sculling, Kitesurfing, Orienteering, Painting, Computer programming, Creative writing, Scuba diving

Introduction: My name is Horacio Brakus JD, I am a lively, splendid, jolly, vivacious, vast, cheerful, agreeable person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.