The three aims of this systematic review are to describe: (1) use of the term fundamental motor/movement skills (FMS) in published articles; (2) the quality of definitions; and (3) relative use of process- and product- oriented assessments to measure FMS. The inclusion criteria included: (a) peer-reviewed article, (b) printed in English, (c) published between January 2000 and 31 December 2015, (d) presence of either the term “fundamental motor or movement skill” in the title and/or abstract, and (e) FMS were a measured outcome. There has been an increase in the number of publications on FMS in recent years, with the majority of studies conducted in Australia (n = 41, 33%). Approximately 24% of studies (n = 30) did not provide any explicit definition of FMS. A majority of studies reported the use of process-oriented measures (n = 98, 79%) compared to product-oriented measures (n = 23, 19%), and few studies used both (n = 6, 5%). We recommend that researchers provide: (1) an operational definition of FMS that states FMS are the “building blocks” (or similar terminology) of more advanced, complex movements; (2) specific categories of skills that compose FMS; and (3) at least one specific example of a FMS.

Process-oriented motor competence (MC) assessments evaluate how a movement is performed. Product-oriented assessments evaluate the outcome of a movement. Determining the concurrent validity of process and product assessments is important to address the predictive utility of motor competence for health. The current study aimed to: (1) compare process and product assessments of the standing long jump, hop and throw across age groups and (2) determine the capacity of process assessments to classify levels of MC. Participants included 170 children classified into three age groups: 4–5, 7–8 and 10–11 years old. Participants’ skills were examined concurrently using three process assessments ((Test of Gross Motor Development-2nd edition [TGMD-2]), Get Skilled; Get Active, and developmental sequences) and one product measure (throw speed, jump and hop distance). Results indicate moderate to strong correlations between (1) process assessments across skills and age groups (r range = .37–70) and (2) process and product assessments across skills and age groups (r range = .26–.88). In general, sensitivity to detect advanced skill level is lowest for TGMD-2 and highest for developmental sequences for all three skills. The use of process and product assessments is suggested to comprehensively capture levels of MC in human movement.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between motor proficiency and body mass index (BMI) in preschool children. Thirty-eight children ages 4–6 years had their BMI calculated and were assessed using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC-2; Henderson, Sugden, & Barnett, 2007). These data were analyzed in two ways. The correlation between BMI and MABC-2 percentile ranks was calculated. Next, the groups were subdivided based on BMI status (high, M = 85.5; medium, M = 49.8; low, M = 10.8), and compared using t tests to determine if differences existed in MABC-2 percentile ranks. No significant relationship existed between MABC-2 and BMI percentile ranks (r = -.237). However, significant differences in MABC-2 percentile ranks existed between high and low (p = .042), and high and medium (p = .043) groups. These results suggest that preschool children classified as overweight or obese may have lower motor proficiency than their normal weight and under weight peers. This study indicates there is a direct relationship between motor proficiency and BMI in the preschool population.

Background: Competence in the motor domain is associated with positive, health-related outcomes. Physical education teachers often administer assessments into their programs to measure motor competence for a variety of reasons. Recently, researchers have questioned the relatedness of performance on different assessments. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare motor assessment outcomes of the Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2) and the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC-2) in school-age children. Method: Sixty-five children (M = 6.7 years) completed the TGMD-2 and the MABC-2. The TGMD-2 includes two subscales: object control and locomotor skills. The MABC-2 includes three subscales: manual dexterity, aiming and catching, and balance. Standard scores and percentile rankings were used for analysis. Findings: Although 10 of the possible 12 Pearson correlations were significant, the range of r² values was 0.07–0.27 indicating low practical significance. A paired samples t-test revealed that participants scored higher on the MABC-2 (M = 42.2 percentile) compared to the TGMD-2 (M = 17.2 percentile, p < 0.01). A 2 (sex) × 3 (grade) MANOVA revealed no significant sex differences on total performance of the TGMD-2 (F = 0.85, p = 0.36) or the MABC-2 (F = 0.2, p = 0.66), indicating that boys and girls performed similarly on each assessment. Results also revealed no significant differences on total performance on the MABC-2 (F = 0.93, p = 0.4) based on the grade level. However, a grade difference was found on the TGMD-2 (F = 4.3, p = 0.02; η² = 0.128). Tukey's post hoc analysis revealed a significantly higher TGMD-2 performance for first graders compared to second graders (p = 0.03). No significant interaction effect was found for either assessment (p > 0.05). Results indicate that both assessments agreed on 9 out of 11 possible children as at-risk of Developmental Coordination Disorder (81.8% agreement) and 27 out of 29 children as delayed in the motor domain (93.1% agreement). Conclusions: The TGMD-2 and MABC-2 measure different aspects and/or levels of motor competence and should not be used interchangeably. Each assessment may be used to complement each other. Given the level of agreement between the TGMD-2 and the MABC-2 to identify children as at-risk of Developmental Coordination Disorder and developmentally delayed in the motor domain, it may be recommended that physical education teachers administer the TGMD-2 as part of annual testing. Physical educators can act as the first line of defense in early identification of motor delay and can make the appropriate referral based on TGMD-2 performance.