Developing Modifications for Assessment in Children With ASD: Preliminary Results

• Published in: Research quarterly for exercise and sport 2016-06, Vol.87 (S2), p.A32
• Main Authors: Colombo-Dougovito, Andrew M, Kelly, Luke E
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Autism; Autism Spectrum Disorders; Control Groups; Experimental Groups; Motor Development; Psychomotor Skills; Validity; Visual aids
• ISSN: 0270-1367; 2168-3824

Mounting evidence has revealed a deficit in motor ability in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD; Liu, Hamilton, Davis, & ElGarhy, 2014; Staples & Reid, 2010). In these and similar studies, researchers have stated modifications were necessary during the assessment to effectively ascertain the participants' ability. Recent research (e.g., Breslin & Rudisill, 2011) has demonstrated the benefit of using visuals during the assessment. However, what is lacking is general consensus of the methods necessary to modify the assessment to meet the needs of the participants. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to build an understanding of the modifications best suited to adapt motor assessments for children with ASD. Using a random sample of 9 boys with ASD, this study compared the effects of 3 different protocols on the performance outcomes of 2 subtest items (throwing and hopping) of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2). In this analysis, the traditional protocol for the TGMD was given to a control group (N = 3), while 2 experimental groups, a task card group (N = 2) and a video model (N = 4), received alternative protocols. Data were collected on performance of the subtest items and overall assessment time. Additionally, participants were measured on understanding through a validity check following each trial. In addition to the alternative testing protocol, experimental groups were given 2 acclimation days to understand how the environment might play a role in the testing procedure. Analysis revealed no significant differences between groups on both performance and time, demonstrating little effect of the protocol on the overall performance of the motor task, as well as the time needed for assessment. However, there was a significant result in the overall validity check between groups when controlling for age, F(2, 6) = 5.437, p = .045, partial eta2 = .644. Individual contrasts demonstrate significant differences in understanding between the control group and the experimental groups, t(7) = 2.604, p = .035; however, they did not demonstrate a significant difference between the experimental groups, t(7) = 1.243, p = .254. Results from this analysis reveal, although visual aids had little effect on the overall motor performance and overall time of assessment, there was a greater amount of understanding from participants with the visual aids. Preliminary results provide evidence of the necessity to utilize visual aids when assessing individuals w