Table 3 Evaluating results for measurement properties against COSMIN’s updated criteria for good measurement properties

 Motor Observation Questionnaire for Teachers (MOQ-T)

Schoemaker et al. [45]

–

With Movement Assessment Battery for Children test

r = 0.57, p < 0.001; AUC = 0.77, CI: 0.71–0.84; Sensitivity = 80.5%; Specificity = 62% for cut-off score > 35 (+)

–

Convergent

With Developmental Coordination Disorder-Questionnaire r = −0.64, p < 0.001 (1+)

Discriminant

Children in referred group (49.0, SD = 11.0) versus comparison group (30.2, SD = 11.2), F(1,182) = 130.442, p < 0.001 (1?)

–

–

Structural validity

+

Criterion validity

+

Construct validity

?

Internal consistency

+

Giofrè et al. [46]

EFA: 2 factors accounting for 58.26% of total variance

CFA: χ² (134) = 269.01, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.05, CFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.99, AIC = 343.01 (+)

–

–

–

Cronbach’s α 0.95 (?)

–

Asunta et al. [47]

PCA (varimax): 2 factors accounting for 70.5% of the total variance

CFA: χ² (132) = 530.90, RMSEA = 0.060, SRMR = 0.038, CFI = 0.951, TLI = 0.943, ABIC = 21,850.503 (+)

With Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 test

AUC = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.64–0.82; Sensitivity = 82.0%; Specificity = 44.4% for a cut-off score of 36 (+)

–

Known-groups

Gender: Boys (Median = 25) and Girls (Median = 21), Mann Whitney U = 112,513, z = 6.31, p < 0.001, r = 0.216

Age: Differences between 6- and 7-year-olds (z = 94.70, p = 0.002, r = 0.277) and between 7- and 9-year-olds (z = 97.53, p < 0.001, r = 0.243), Kruskal-Wallis H(3) = 19.754, p < 0.001 (2?)

Cronbach’s α 0.96 (total), Cronbach’s α 0.96 (Motor functioning), Cronbach’s α 0.90 (Handwriting/fine motor control) (+)

–

Nowak, Schoemaker [48]

EFA: 3 factors accounting for 77.9% of total variance (?)

With Körperkoordinationstest für Kinder test

AUC = 0.96, CI: 0.90–1.00; Sensitivity = 80%, Specificity = 94% for cut-off score ≥ 44.5; r = −0.789, p < 0.001 for control group and r = − 0.691, p < 0.001 for clinic-referred group (+)

–

–

Cronbach’s α 0.962 (total), Cronbach’s α 0.969 (Gross motor skills), Cronbach’s α 0.857 (Fine motor skills), Cronbach’s α 0.746 (General motor coordination) (+)

–

 Movement Assessment Battery for Children - 2 Checklist (MABC-2 Checklist)

Schoemaker et al. [49]

EFA: 6 factors accounting for 69% of total variance (?)

With Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 test

r_s = − 0.38, p < 0.001 (−)

–

Convergent

With Developmental Coordination Disorder-Questionnaire r_s = − 0.36; p < 0.001 (−)

Discriminant

Checklist scores predicted motor impairment/ non-motor impairment (B [standard error, SE] = − 0.082 [0.015]; p < 0.001 [odds ratio 0.92; CI: 0.90–0.95) (?)

Cronbach’s α 0.94 (?)

–

Structural validity

±

Criterion validity

?

Cross-cultural validity

?

Construct validity

−

Internal consistency

±

Kita et al. [50]

CFA: χ² /df = 2.355; GFI = 0.941; AGFI = 0.870, CFI = 0.987; RMSEA = 0.049 (+)

–

Significant differences between total score on original, parent rating, and teacher rating. Significant main effects in all age groups (6 year: F(2,92.65) = 42.75, p < 0.001; 7 year: F(2,137.56) = 45.32, p < 0.001; 8 year: F(2,140.49) = 16.43, p < 0.001) (?)

–

Cronbach’s α 0.973 (sections A), Cronbach’s α 0.973 (sections B) (+)

–

Capistrano et al. [51]

–

Significant difference between scores on the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 test, Checklist and the Developmental Coordination Disorder-Questionnaire (F_4,3 = 810.1; p = 0.001) (?)

–

Convergent

Correlation between the Checklist (classroom teacher evaluation) and the Developmental Coordination Disorder-Questionnaire r = − 0.28; p = 0.11; and between the Checklist (physical education teacher evaluation) and the Developmental Coordination Disorder-Questionnaire r = 0.16; p = 0.53 (2−)

–

–

De Milander et al. [52]

With Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 test

Kappa coefficient = 0.161; effect size = 0.228 (?)

 Pictorial Scale of Perceived Water Competence (PSPWC)

De Pasquale et al. [53]

–

–

–

–

–

–

Content validity

Relevance

±

Comprehensiveness

+

Comprehensibility

+

 Reiss Motivation Profile for children (Child RMP)

Weems et al. [54]

CFA: RMSEA = 0.064, 90% CI = 0.063–0.065, CFI = 0.74 (−)

–

–

Discriminant

At-risk youth had significantly lower scores on subscales Competence, Order, Character, Social Contact, and Curiosity, but significantly higher scores on Competition and Acceptance (ps < 0.05) (?)

Cronbach’s α 0.90 (Popularity); Cronbach’s α 0.83 (Competence); Cronbach’s α 0.85 (Competition); Cronbach’s α 0.81 (Order); Cronbach’s α 0.86 (Anxiety); Cronbach’s α 0.92 (Character); Cronbach’s α 0.86 (Social Contact); Cronbach’s α 0.92 (Curiosity); Cronbach’s α 0.83 (Acceptance); Cronbach’s α 0.93 (Physical Activity) (?)

–

Structural validity

−

Construct validity

?

Internal consistency

?

 Teacher’s Self-concept Evaluation Scale

Mocke et al. [55]

–

–

–

Convergent

With Preliminary Self-Concept Questionnaire

r = 0.58, p < 0.01

With Self-description Questionnaire subscales

r = 0.33 to 0.54, p = 0.01 (2+)

Cronbach α 0.89 (?)

–

Construct validity

+

Internal consistency

?

 Teen Risk Screen checklist (TRS)

Kidd, Africa [56]

CFA: Posture and Stability-Axial movement: RMSEA 0.10 (p = 0.03), AGFI 1.00, CR 0.98, VE 0.85; Posture and

stability Dynamic movement: RMSEA 0.12 (p = 0.05), AGFI 0.99, CR 0.95, VE 0.80; Locomotor skills-single skills: RMSEA 0.10 (p = 0.13), AGFI 1.00, CR 0.97, VE 0.86; Locomotor skills-combination, Manipulative skills-sending away, Manipulative skills-possession: RMSEA 0.008 (p = 0.74), AGFI 0.99, CR 0.79 for Locomotor skills-combination, 0.85 for Manipulative skills-sending away and 0.76 for Manipulative skills-possession, VE 0.57 for Locomotor skills-combination, 0.65 for Manipulative skills-sending away, and 0.76 for Manipulative skills-possession (−)

–

–

–

Test 1: Cronbach’s α ranged between 0.67 to 0.93

Test 2: Cronbach’s α ranged between 0.45 to 0.90 (?)

Test-retest

ICC values: Posture and Stability-Axial movement 0.51 (0.32, 0.65); Posture and

stability Dynamic movement 0.63 (0.46, 0.75); Locomotor skills-single skills 0.86 (0.76, 0.91); Locomotor skills-combination 0.74 (0.65, 0.82); Manipulative skills-sending away 0.34 (0.13, 0.51); Manipulative skills-possession 0.56 (0.42, 0.67), Manipulative skills-gaining possession (Kappa 0.36 (0.21, 0.53) (−)

Structural validity

−

Reliability

−

Internal consistency

?

 Brief Behaviour Rating Scale (BBRS)

Frank M Gresham et al. [57]

–

–

–

Convergent

Correlation with the Teacher Report Form Total Problems (r = 0.51); Social Skills Rating Scale-Problem Behaviour (r = 0.54); Social Skills Rating System-Social Skills (r = − 0.59) and Social Skills Rating System-Academic Competence scale (r = − 0.21) (2+, 2−)

Cronbach’s α 0.70 (?)

Test-retest

r = 0.71 (?)

Construct validity

±

Reliability

?

Internal consistency

?

 Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA)

Nickerson, Fishman [58]

–

–

–

Convergent

Correlations with Behavioural and Emotional Rating Scales–2 subscales ranged from 0.49 to 0.78, p < 0.01; and with the Behaviour Assessment System for Children–2 Adaptive Skills Composite were r = 0.92, p < 0.01 (2+)

Divergent

Correlations with Behaviour Assessment System for Children–2 clinical subscales with r = − 0.60, r = − 0.26, and r = − 0.62 for Externalizing, Internalizing, and School Problems subscales respectively (1+, 2−)

–

–

Structural validity

+ (five factor model)

Construct validity

±

Doromal et al. [59]

5 factors. CFI = 0.943; TLI = 0.940; RMSEA = 0.046, 90% CI = 0.042, 0.050; WRMR = 1.317 (+)

–

–

Convergent

Correlations with Student-Teacher Relationship Scale conflict scores (r = − 0.61, p < 0.01) and closeness scores (r = 0.63, p < 0.01); Child Behaviour Rating Scale (r = 0.55, p < 0.01), and SSIS problem behaviours (r = − 0.52, p < 0.01); moderately associated with perspective taking scores (r = 0.22, p < 0.01); and weakly associated with behavioural self- regulation scores (r = 0.16, p < 0.01) (4+, 2−)

Discriminant

Social awareness scores of the DESSA were not associated with the Head-Toes- Knees-Shoulders scores (r = 0.07, p = 0.21) (?)

–

–

 Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC)

Molina et al. [60]

CFA: χ² = 845.69, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.072, SRMR = 0.10 (+)

–

–

–

Cronbach’s α 0.79 (Emotion Regulation); Cronbach’s α 0.90 (Lability/Negativity) (+)

–

Structural validity

+

Internal consistency

+

 Multisource Assessment of Social Competence Scale (MASCS)

Junttila et al. [61]

CFA: χ² (81) = 349.07; NNFI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.08; 90% CI = 0.08, 0.09; SRMR = 0.061 (+)

–

–

Convergent

Significant correlations with multiple sources of rating (1+, 2−)

Known-groups

Mainstream and special education: Cooperating skills (t = 2.71; p = 0.027); Empathy (t = 3.91; p < 0.001); Impulsivity (t = − 5.22; p < 0.001) and; Disruptiveness (t = − 4.35; p < 0.001)

Gender: Cooperating skills (t = 7.01; p < 0.001); Empathy (t = 9.69; p < 0.001); Impulsivity (t = − 10.73; p < 0.001) and; Disruptiveness (t = − 12.88; p < 0.001) (2?)

Cronbach’s α 0.89 (Cooperating skills); Cronbach’s α 0.84 (Empathy); Cronbach’s α 0.88 (Impulsivity); Cronbach’s α 0.89 (Disruptiveness) (+)

–

Structural validity

+

Construct validity

±

Internal consistency

+

 Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children- Teacher (PSPCSA-T)

Harter, Pike [62]

–

–

–

Convergent

Subscale correlations with Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children (child version) were r = 0.37, p < 0.001 (Cognitive), r = 0.30, p < 0.005 (Physical competence) and r = 0.06 (Social acceptance) (−)

–

–

Construct validity

−

Internal consistency

+

Strein, Simonson [63]

–

–

–

Convergent

Subscale correlations with Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children (child version) were r = 0.40 (cognitive) and r = 0.20 (Physical competence) (−)

Cronbach’s α 0.81 (Cognitive competence); Cronbach’s α 0.76 (Physical competence) Cronbach’s α 0.80 (Peer acceptance) (+)

–

Garrison et al. [64]

–

–

–

Convergent

Subscale correlations with Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children (child version) were r = 0.53, p < 0.001 (Cognitive), r = 0.03 (Physical competence) and r = −0.09 (Peer acceptance) (−)

–

–

 Social-Emotional Assets and Resilience Scale, Teacher rating form (SEARS-T)

Merrell et al. [65]

EFA: 4 factors explaining for 63.96% of total variance. CFA: χ² (2) = 9.78, p = 0.01; CFI = 0.997; RMSEA = 0.068; SRMR = 0.010 (+)

–

–

Convergent

Correlations with Social Skills Rating Scale r = 0.82 and Peer Relations subscale of the School Social Behavior Scale-2 r = 0.90 (2+)

Known-groups

Gender: Girls scored higher than boys on all factors and total score (t = 7.31, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d ES = 0.36)

Special education status: children without disabilities or those not receiving special education services scored higher than those receiving special education services (t = −  11.76, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d ES = 0.74)

Grade: Students in primary and elementary grades (K-6) scored higher than secondary grades (7–12) on total SEARS-T score. Differences non-significant. (t = 1.19, Cohen’s d ES = 0.05)

Teacher-perceived levels of academic performance: Lower perceived levels of academic performance associated with lower mean SEARS-T scores and vice versa (p < 0.001). Cohen’s d ES = 0.51–2.04.

Ethnicity: Non-significant differences in SEARS-T scores (5?)

Cronbach’s α 0.95 (Responsibility); Cronbach’s α 0.94 (Social Competence); Cronbach’s α 0.95 (Self-regulation); Cronbach’s α 0.92 (Empathy); Cronbach’s α 0.98 (Total scale) (+)

–

Structural validity

±

Construct validity

?

Reliability

?

Internal consistency

±

Romer, Merrell [66]

–

–

–

–

–

Test-retest

r = 0.94 (total); r = 0.90 (Self-regulation); r = 0.92 (Social competence); r = 0.84 (Empathy); r =

0.92 (Responsibility) (?)

Figueiredo et al. [67]

CFA: 40 items used. χ² (732) = 1.87, p = 0.00; CFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.91 RMSEA = 0.06 (−)

Convergent

Subscale correlations with the Social Skills Rating System r = 0.62 to 0.76, p < 0.001 (+)

Known-groups

Gender: Girls scored higher than boys on subscales Responsibility, Empathy, Self-Regulation and total score; t(233) = − 2.35, p = 0.02, g = 0.31

Age: Differences in SEARS-T total score based on age; F(7,227) = 2.33, p = .026, η² = 0.06 (2?)

Cronbach’s α 0.94 (Responsibility); Cronbach’s α 0.92 (Social Competence); Cronbach’s α 0.95 (Self-regulation); Cronbach’s α 0.92 (Empathy); Cronbach’s α 0.98 (Total scale) (?)

 Social Skills Improvement System Social Emotional Learning Edition Rating Forms (SSIS SEL RF) – Teacher version

Frank Gresham et al. [68]

CFA: Six factor model χ² = 11.225, p < 0.0001; CFI = 0.75; RMSEA = 0.08 (90% CI = 0.079, 0.82) (−)

For ages 5–12 years, Cronbach’s α 0.96 (total), Cronbach’s α 0.78 (Self-Awareness); Cronbach’s α 0.91 (Self-Management); Cronbach’s α 0.91 (Social Awareness); Cronbach’s α 0.90 (Relationship Skills); Cronbach’s α 0.80 (Responsible Decision-Making); Cronbach’s α 0.97 and (Academic Competence) (?)

Test-retest

r = 0.84 (total)

Interrater

Agreement between two teacher ratings

r = 0.69 (2?)

Structural validity

−

Internal consistency

?

Test-retest

?

 Teacher-Child Rating Scale (T-CRS)

Hightower et al. [69]

PCA: 3 factors for problem behaviours

accounted for 75.6% of the total variance. 3 factors found for competence accounting for 74.6% of total variance (?)

–

–

Convergent

Correlations with Classroom Adjustment Rating Scale subscales r = 0.72 to 0.89

Correlations with Health Resources Inventory r = 0.56 to 0.82 (2+)

Known-groups

Program/No program comparison: program sample was rated more maladjusted/less competent than the no-program sample (p < 0.0001)

Location, Sex, Grade: Urban children had significantly more problems and fewer competencies than suburban children.

Boys had significantly higher Acting out and Learning problem scores, whereas girls had significantly higher Task Orientation scores and directionally higher Frustration Tolerance scores. No significant grade effects or interactions (4?)

Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.85 to 0.95 for samples A and B (+)

Test-retest

10 and 20-week test-retest coefficients ranged from 0.61 to 0.91 (?)

Structural validity

?

Construct validity

?

Internal consistency

+

Reliability

?

 Teacher Questionnaire (TQ)

Jensen et al. [70]

–

–

–

Convergent

Subscales phi correlations with Primary Self Concept Scale were − 0.04 to 0.57 at initial testing and − 0.05 to 0.33 at retest (−)

–

–

Construct validity

−

 Teacher Rating of Social Efficacy

Wheeler, Ladd [71]

EFA: Two factors accounted for 70% of the total variance (?)

–

–

Convergent

Correlations with the Children’s Self-Efficacy for Peer Interaction Scale r = 0.67, p < 0.01 for Indiana sample and r = 0.29, p < 0.01 for New York sample (±)

Cronbach’s α 0.73 (?)

Test-retest

r = 0.96 (third grade); r = 0.97 (fourth grade); and r = 0.95 (fifth grade) (?)

Structural validity

?

Construct validity

±

Reliability

?

Internal Consistency

?

 Winnetka Scale for Rating School Behaviour

Van Alstyne [72]

Three factors found using the Thurstone method (?)

–

–

Convergent

Correlation with Schedule A, Behaviour Problem Record r = 0.54 and with Schedule B, Behaviour Rating Scale r = 0.68. Correlations with the Emotional and Social Divisions of the Haggerty-Olson Scale r = 0.71 (2+)

–

0.87 for the entire scale (?)

Structural validity

?

Construct validity

+

Reliability

?

Leton et al. [73]

PCA: Six factor model with factor loadings for total group for Responsibility 79%, Cooperation, Leadership, Emotional independence (?)

–

–

Known-groups

Gender: Girls rated higher than boys for cooperation scales and directing group tasks. Boys received higher mean ratings for Independence of Adult Approval and Self-confidence (?)

–

–

 Children Activity Scales for Teachers (CHAS-T)

Rosenblum [74]

EFA: 3 factors accounting for 68% of total variance (?)

With Movement Assessment Battery for Children test

r = 0.75, p < 0.0001 (+)

–

Convergent

Correlation with Children Activity Scales for Parents (r = 0.59, p < 0.001) (+)

Discriminant

Significant differences found between two groups (i.e. TD and DCD) (t = 4.36, df = 49, p < 0.0001) (?)

Cronbach’s α 0.96 (?)

–

Content validity

Relevance

±

Comprehensiveness

±

Comprehensibility

±

Structural validity

?

Criterion validity

+

Construct validity

±

Internal consistency

?

 Gross Motor Rating Scale (GMRS)

Netelenbos [75]

2 factors accounting for 73.5% of the total variance (?)

With Movement Assessment Battery for Children test

r = 0.29 (n.s) (−)

–

Convergent

Correlations with stepping-stone motor test (crossing time) (r = − 0.32, p < 0.01); and Test of Gross Motor Development-locomotor subtest (r = − 0.41, p < 0.01) (2−)

Cronbach’s α 0.98 (?)

Test–retest

Class A: r = 0.90 (N = 27), Class B: r = 0.91 (N = 32); Class C: r = 0.88 (N = 23)

Interrater

r = 0.79

(?)

Structural validity

?

Criterion validity

−

Construct validity

−

Reliability

?

Internal consistency

?

 Harter’s Teacher’s Rating Scale of Children’s Actual Behaviour (TRS)

Cole et al. [76]

–

–

–

Convergent

Inter-battery factor analyses extracted one factor for third-grade boys and third-grade girls, three factors for sixth-grade boys, and two factors for sixth-grade girls. All of the factors had strong correspondence between teachers and self-ratings. Teacher ratings of a particular domain loaded onto the same factor as self-ratings of the same domain (?)

–

–

Structural validity

+

Construct validity

?

Cole et al. [77]

χ² = 684.58 (df = 395), GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.033, p > 0.99 (+)

Convergent

Evident in significant trait factor loadings χ² (230, N = 495) = 382.52, GFI = 91, CFI = 95, RMSEA = 0.054.

Factor loadings on the TRS compared with the PRS. Factor loadings not significantly different for the subscales: Academic competence, Social Acceptance, Athletic competence and Behavioural conduct, with the exception of Physical Appearance subscale (?)

Discriminant

χ² (230, N = 495) = 382.52, GFI = 91, CFI = 95, RMSEA = 0.054. The multigroup model fit the data model without allowing scales to cross-load (?)

–

–

Cole et al. [78]

–

–

–

Convergent

Evident in the size and significance of appropriate factor loadings. Measures loaded onto their respective factor (p < 0.001) (?)

Discriminant

Model was a good fit for the data. 1 pair of constructs (out of 10 possible pairs) appeared to lack discriminant validity: social acceptance and physical appearance (?)

–

–

 Health Resources Inventory (HRI)

Gesten [79]

EFA: Five factor model accounting for 71% of total variance (?)

–

–

Convergent

Correlation with Classroom Activity Rating Scale r = −  0.80 (+)

Known groups

Residence: County children had significantly higher scores than city children except on Frustration Tolerance subscale.

Sex: Girls had significantly higher HRI scores than boys except on Gutsy subscale.

Grade: Older children had higher HRI scores, but only Gutsy subscale showed significant grade difference (3?)

Discriminant

Mean score for normal and disturbed samples compared showed that the normative sample had significantly higher HRI scores t(df) = 6.28, p < 0.001 (?)

–

Test-retest

rs = 0.87 (total scale), rs = 0.83 (Good student), rs = 0.77 (Gutsy), rs = 0.72 (Peer Sociability), rs = 0.91 (rules), and rs = 0.87 (Frustration Tolerance) (?)

Structural validity

?

Construct validity

?

Reliability

?

 Social and Emotional Competencies Evaluation Questionnaire Teacher’s version – Short Form (QACSE-P-SF)

Coelho et al. [80]

CFA: χ² /df = 1.546; CFI = 0.961; GFI = 0.896; RMSEA = 0.041 (+)

–

–

Known-groups

Gender: Higher values for Self-Control, t(328) = 6.71, p < 0.001, Social Awareness, t(311) = 3.24, p = 0.001, and Relationship Skills, t(328) = 1.98, p < 0.05 were attributed to girls.

Grade: Significant differences were found in Social Awareness, F(2,327) = 5.71, p < 0.005, Relationship Skills, F(2, 327) = 4.42, p < 0.05, and Responsible Decision Making, F(4,325) = 8.17, p < 0.001. First cycle students had higher Social Awareness and Relationship Skills than third-cycle students, while second-cycle students had higher scores than first- and third-cycle students in Responsible Decision Making (2?)

Cronbach’s α 0.84 (Self-control); Cronbach’s α 0.81 (Social Awareness); Cronbach’s α 0.92 (Relationship Skills); Cronbach’s α 0.91 (Social Isolation), Cronbach’s α 0.84 (Social Anxiety); Cronbach’s α 0.85 (Responsible Decision Making) (+)

Test-retest

r = 0.74 (Self-control); r = 0.68 (Social Awareness); r = 0.69 (Relationship Skills); r = 0.66 (Social Isolation), r = 0.73 (Social Anxiety); r = 0.57 (Responsible Decision Making) (?)

Structural validity

+

Construct validity

?

Reliability

?

Internal consistency

+

 Social Skills Rating Scale (SSRS-T)

Clark et al. [81]

EFA: 4 factors accounted for 57% of total variance (?)

–

–

Convergent

Correlation with Teacher rating of Academic Performance items (r = 0.60–0.64; p < 0.0001)

Correlation with Walker Problem Behavior Identification Checklist (r = − 0.54; p < 0.01) (2−)

Cronbach’s α 0.96 (?)

–

Structural validity

?

Construct validity

?

Internal consistency

?

Frank M Gresham et al. [82]

EFA: 4 factor model accounting for 45.6% of total variance (?)

–

–

Known groups

Correlation of the variable’s student sex, student race, grade, and age with Social Skills Rating Scale ranged between r = − 0.11 to 0.12 (n.s). Correlations significant for Social Skills Rating Scale total score and Teachers race r = − 0.15, p < 0.05 (5?)

Cronbach’s α 0.96 (total), Cronbach’s α 0.93 (Academic Performance); Cronbach’s α 0.89 (Social Initiation); Cronbach’s α 0.92 (Cooperation); Cronbach’s α 0.75 (Peer Reinforcement) (+)

–

Reliability

?

Elliott et al. [83]

–

–

–

Divergent

Correlations with Revised Behaviour Problem Checklist subscales ranged between r = − 0.37 and − 0.93, p < 0.01

No significant correlations (median r = 0.12) were observed with the Teacher rating of Academic Performance (2−)

Known-groups

Grade differences found (?)

Time 1 Cronbach’s α = 0.96; Time 2 Cronbach’s α 0.95 (?)

Test-retest

r = 0.90 (?)

Interrater Agreement between teacher and observer ratings r = 0.65, p < 0.05 (2?)

 Teacher Estimation of Activity Form (TEAF)

Faught et al. [17]

EFA: unifactorial, first eigenvalue = 8.0, second eigenvalue = 0.3 (?)

With Bruininks–Oseretsky test of motor proficiency-short form AUC = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.68–0.86; Sensitivity = 0.85, CI: 0.68–0.94; Specificity = 0.46, CI: 0.42–0.51 for cut-off score < 32 (+)

–

Convergent

Correlations with the Children’s Self-perceptions of Adequacy in and Predilection toward Physical Activity questionnaire (r = 0.45, p = 0.001), Participation Questionnaire (r = 0.25, p = 0.001), VO_2max (r = 0.56, p = 0.001), and BMI (r = − 0.25, p = 0.001) (2+, 2−)

Cronbach’s α 0.98 (+)

–

Structural validity

?

Criterion validity

+

Construct validity

±

Internal consistency

+

Sara Rosenblum, Engel-Yeger [84]

1 factor accounting for 82.5% of the total variance (?)

With MABC test

r = 0.76, p < 0.01 for DCD group; Sensitivity = 73%; Specificity = 27% (+)

–

Known-groups

Gender: Males: Mean = 3.04 ± 0.95; Females: Mean = 3.02 ± 0.98, t(121) = 0.103 (n.s)

TD versus DCD: TD: Mean = 3.5 ± 0.84; DCD: Mean = 2.46 ± 0.75, t(121) = 7.15, p < 0.0001 (2?)

Cronbach’s α 0.975 (+)

–