Bifactor structure and model reliability of the Test of Gross Motor Development — 3rd edition

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES Journal of science and medicine in sport Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jsams.2020.08.009
Alex C. Garn , E. Kipling Webster
{"title":"Bifactor structure and model reliability of the Test of Gross Motor Development — 3rd edition","authors":"Alex C. Garn ,&nbsp;E. Kipling Webster","doi":"10.1016/j.jsams.2020.08.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>This study investigated the structure of the Test of Gross Motor Development – 3rd edition (TGMD-3). Specifically, we examine bifactor structure, which simultaneously models a fundamental motor skills (FMS) general factor and specific factors for locomotor skills and ball skills, compared to other models.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Cross-sectional design using the TGMD-3 normative sample.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The sample (<em>N</em> = 862) of children (<em>Mage</em> = 6.51, <em>SD</em><span> = 2.23) was matched based on United States census data, ensuring appropriate percentages of demographic representation and disability status. Confirmatory factor analyses, exploratory structural equation modeling, model-based reliability estimates including coefficient omega hierarchical, and coefficient omega hierarchical subscale, explained common variance estimates, and relative parameter bias were examined.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Findings revealed bifactor structure produced a better model fit compared to both one-factor and two-factor models. Furthermore, model reliability estimates that parceled true score variance for the general FMS factor, locomotor skills factor, and ball skills factor yielded high internal consistency for FMS (.797) but not locomotor skills (.168) and ball skills (.216). Finally, explained common variance (.852–.879) and relative parameter bias (.018–.072) estimates identified the strength of the run, skip, slide, and dribble skills tests to represent the FMS general factor.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Our findings demonstrate the advantages of using bifactor structure to examine the TGMD-3 compared to one-factor and two-factor models. Additionally, these results provide further evidence that using the TGMD-3 to examine an overall FMS general factor may explain more variance in performance and provide a better picture for evaluating children’s current FMS levels compared to subscales independently.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16992,"journal":{"name":"Journal of science and medicine in sport","volume":"24 1","pages":"Pages 67-73"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jsams.2020.08.009","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of science and medicine in sport","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1440244020307428","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Objectives

This study investigated the structure of the Test of Gross Motor Development – 3rd edition (TGMD-3). Specifically, we examine bifactor structure, which simultaneously models a fundamental motor skills (FMS) general factor and specific factors for locomotor skills and ball skills, compared to other models.

Design

Cross-sectional design using the TGMD-3 normative sample.

Methods

The sample (N = 862) of children (Mage = 6.51, SD = 2.23) was matched based on United States census data, ensuring appropriate percentages of demographic representation and disability status. Confirmatory factor analyses, exploratory structural equation modeling, model-based reliability estimates including coefficient omega hierarchical, and coefficient omega hierarchical subscale, explained common variance estimates, and relative parameter bias were examined.

Results

Findings revealed bifactor structure produced a better model fit compared to both one-factor and two-factor models. Furthermore, model reliability estimates that parceled true score variance for the general FMS factor, locomotor skills factor, and ball skills factor yielded high internal consistency for FMS (.797) but not locomotor skills (.168) and ball skills (.216). Finally, explained common variance (.852–.879) and relative parameter bias (.018–.072) estimates identified the strength of the run, skip, slide, and dribble skills tests to represent the FMS general factor.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate the advantages of using bifactor structure to examine the TGMD-3 compared to one-factor and two-factor models. Additionally, these results provide further evidence that using the TGMD-3 to examine an overall FMS general factor may explain more variance in performance and provide a better picture for evaluating children’s current FMS levels compared to subscales independently.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大肌肉动作发展测试的双因素结构和模型信度-第三版
目的探讨大肌肉动作发展测验第三版(TGMD-3)的结构。具体来说,我们研究了双因素结构,与其他模型相比,它同时模拟了基本运动技能(FMS)的一般因素和运动技能和球技的特定因素。设计采用TGMD-3规范样本进行横断面设计。方法根据美国人口普查数据匹配儿童样本(N = 862)(Mage = 6.51,SD = 2.23),确保人口统计学代表性和残疾状况的适当百分比。验证性因子分析、探索性结构方程建模、基于模型的可靠性估计(包括系数omega分层、系数omega分层子量表)、解释共同方差估计和相对参数偏差进行了检验。结果与单因素和双因素模型相比,双因素结构具有更好的模型拟合效果。此外,模型信度估计显示,一般FMS因素、运动技能因素和球技因素的真实得分方差在FMS因素(.797)中具有较高的内部一致性,而在运动技能(.168)和球技(.216)中则没有。最后,解释了共同方差(.852 -.879)和相对参数偏差(.018 -.072)估计,确定了跑、跳、滑和运球技能测试的强度,以代表FMS一般因素。结论与单因素模型和双因素模型相比,采用双因素结构检测TGMD-3具有优势。此外,这些结果提供了进一步的证据,使用TGMD-3来检查整体FMS一般因素可能解释更多的表现差异,并为评估儿童当前的FMS水平提供更好的画面,而不是独立的子量表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
198
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport is the official journal of Sports Medicine Australia (SMA) and is an an international refereed research publication covering all aspects of sport science and medicine. The Journal considers for publication Original research and Review papers in the sub-disciplines relating generally to the broad sports medicine and sports science fields: sports medicine, sports injury (including injury epidemiology and injury prevention), physiotherapy, podiatry, physical activity and health, sports science, biomechanics, exercise physiology, motor control and learning, sport and exercise psychology, sports nutrition, public health (as relevant to sport and exercise), and rehabilitation and injury management. Manuscripts with an interdisciplinary perspective with specific applications to sport and exercise and its interaction with health will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
From replication crisis to research rigor: What applied sport science can learn from psychology. Is Osgood-Schlatter's associated with an increased risk of pars fracture? A retrospective exploratory study of male academy football players. Short and long-term effects of a play-based therapeutic exercise programme in children with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: A randomised controlled trial. Characteristics of potential head injuries across three FIFA Futsal World Cups from 2016 to 2024: A video analysis study. Prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and related hip morphologies, and its developmental dose-response relationship in professional female football players: a multicentre cohort study (PROFE).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1