Unlocking Student Potential: How Schools Use the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test to Measure Motor Skills

Discover how the BOT-2 assessment helps identify motor challenges and supports student development in educational settings

Why Motor Skills Matter in the Classroom

When we think about essential school skills, reading, writing, and arithmetic typically come to mind. But what about the ability to smoothly coordinate both sides of the body, maintain balance, or precisely control hand movements? Motor proficiency forms the hidden foundation of academic success and daily functioning. From sitting upright at a desk to manipulating a pencil or participating in playground activities, motor skills enable students to fully engage in their educational experience.

Academic Impact

Fine motor skills directly affect handwriting ability, while gross motor skills influence classroom behavior and attention.

Social Impact

Motor proficiency affects participation in playground activities and social interactions with peers.

For educators and therapists, identifying children who struggle with these fundamental abilities requires specialized tools. The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition (BOT-2) has emerged as a premier assessment that helps schools pinpoint motor challenges and develop targeted interventions 1 . Since its original development in 1978 and revision in 2005, this comprehensive test has become an invaluable resource for understanding the complete picture of a child's development 1 2 .

Inside the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test: What Exactly Are We Measuring?

The BOT-2 represents a sophisticated approach to evaluating motor proficiency in children and young adults from ages 4 to 21 2 . Unlike casual observation, it provides standardized, norm-referenced data that allows educators to compare a student's performance to national samples of their peers.

Age Range

4 to 21 years

Assessment Tasks

53 engaging activities

Testing Time

45-60 minutes (full form)

Test Components and Sample Tasks

Motor Area Composite Subtest Sample Tasks
Fine Manual Control Fine Motor Precision Cutting out a circle, connecting dots
Fine Motor Integration Copying a star, copying a square
Manual Coordination Manual Dexterity Transferring pennies, sorting cards, stringing blocks
Upper-Limb Coordination Throwing a ball at a target, catching a tossed ball
Body Coordination Bilateral Coordination Tapping foot and finger simultaneously, jumping jacks
Balance Walking forward on a line, standing on one leg on a balance beam
Strength and Agility Running Speed & Agility Shuttle run, one-legged side hop
Strength Standing long jump, sit-ups

Table source: 2 8

Scoring System
Raw Scores

Time to complete, number of correct performances, or number of errors

Point Scores

Converted using standardized tables

Scale Scores & Standard Scores

Allow for meaningful comparisons across ages and demographics

Percentile Ranks

Show how a student compares to peers

Assessment Options
  • Complete Form - 45-60 minutes
  • Short Form - 15-20 minutes
  • Select Composites - Targeted assessment
  • Select Subtests - Focused evaluation

Putting the BOT-2 to the Test: A Crucial School-Based Study

A 2018 Czech study published in Frontiers in Pediatrics addressed a critical question that many practitioners had been asking: How comparable are the results from the short form versus the complete form of the test? 6

Study Methodology
  • Participants: 153 neurotypical children (69 girls and 84 boys) aged 8-11 years
  • Procedure: Each child completed both the complete form (53 items) and short form (14 items)
  • Analysis: Standard scores, paired t-tests, ROC analysis, variance analysis

Key Findings

Analysis Type Finding Practical Implication for Schools
Score Comparison Short form yielded slightly lower scores (45.87 vs. 47.57) Small enough difference that short form remains useful for screening
Sensitivity 84% Short form effectively identifies children with motor challenges
Specificity 42.9% Short form is less effective at confirming typical motor development
Variance Overlap 57% Forms share considerable but not complete measurement overlap

Table source: 6

84%

Sensitivity

Short form successfully identifies most children with genuine motor challenges

42.9%

Specificity

Short form may overidentify children as having potential motor challenges

As the researchers noted, "The BOT-2 SF might be a useful tool to reveal mainly psychomotorically delayed but not above average (psychomotorically advanced) children" 6 .

The School Practitioner's Toolkit: BOT-2 in Action

Essential Equipment for BOT-2 Administration

Category Equipment Items Purpose
Administration Materials Manual, Examinee booklet, Scoring transparency, Administration easel, Record forms Guide standardized administration and accurate scoring
Fine Motor Materials Blocks (15), Cards (50), Pegboard, Pegs (30), Pennies (20), Penny pad, Red pencil Assess fine precision, integration, and manual dexterity
Gross Motor Materials Balance beam, Target, Knee pad, Tennis balls Evaluate balance, coordination, and upper-limb control
General Supplies Stopwatch, Tape measure, Two Chairs, Table, Tape, Scissors, String Support timing, measurement, and proper test setup

Table source: 2

From Identification to Intervention

Fine Motor Challenges

A child with messy handwriting might show difficulties on Fine Motor Precision and Integration subtests, guiding occupational therapists to develop targeted interventions focusing on hand control and visual-motor integration 1 .

Gross Motor Challenges

A child who appears clumsy in physical education might show deficits in Bilateral Coordination and Balance, guiding physical education teachers and therapists to develop activities that specifically address these areas 1 4 .

Beyond Typical Development: The BOT-2's Role in Special Education

The BOT-2 has proven particularly valuable in assessing motor proficiency in children with various special needs. The test's standardization included children requiring special education services, making it appropriate for use with populations such as those with:

Developmental coordination disorder 1

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) 1

Intellectual impairments 1

Learning disabilities 1

A 2021 pilot study established that the short form demonstrates "excellent reliability" for assessing motor skills in youth with Down syndrome, providing school practitioners with evidence to support its use in these populations 7 .

Limitations and Future Directions

Current Limitations
  • Ecological validity may vary across cultures, with some tasks being less familiar to children from different backgrounds 2
  • The short form shows excellent sensitivity but limited specificity, potentially leading to over-referral for comprehensive testing 6
  • Some studies question whether the 14-item short form truly represents a unidimensional construct 3
  • For children with significant discrepancies between gross and fine motor abilities, the total composite score might mask specific deficits 2
Recommendations for Practice
  • Use the BOT-2 as part of a comprehensive assessment battery rather than in isolation
  • Consider cultural and individual factors when interpreting results
  • Use the short form for screening but follow up with comprehensive assessment when needed
  • Look beyond composite scores to identify specific areas of strength and challenge

Looking ahead, the BOT-3 represents the next generation of this assessment tool, though research continues to emerge regarding its application in school settings 9 . Additionally, studies exploring the relationship between BOT-2 results and real-world academic tasks continue to refine our understanding of how motor proficiency supports classroom learning.

Conclusion: The Big Picture of Motor Skill Assessment

The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition has transformed how schools understand and address motor skill development. By providing a standardized, comprehensive approach to assessing both fine and gross motor skills, it brings objective data to an area of development that has often been overlooked in educational planning.

Key Takeaway

Perhaps most importantly, the BOT-2 reminds us that motor proficiency forms a critical dimension of a child's overall development. By identifying and supporting students who struggle with these fundamental skills, schools not only improve their motor capabilities but potentially enhance their academic engagement, social participation, and overall school success.

In the increasingly complex landscape of education, tools like the BOT-2 ensure that we don't miss the foundational skills that support all other learning.

References