Preliminary Adaptation of Motor Tests to Evaluate Fine Motor Skills Associated with Mathematical Skills in Preschoolers
初步调整运动测试以评估与学龄前儿童数学技能相关的精细运动技能

Abstract 抽象

Mathematics is the subject in which many school-age children reveal difficulties. The literature has shown that fine motor skills, namely fine motor coordination and visuomotor integration, have been more robustly associated with mathematical performance. Studies have shown the importance that instruments have to evaluate these skills, however, the characteristics of these instruments do not fit the reality of kindergartens, they are usually time consuming and expensive and are usually administered by specialists. Thus, the main objective of this study was to identify, select, adapt and validate motor tests to evaluate fine motor skills associated with mathematical skills to allow the kindergarten teachers to apply them simultaneously to the class, with few material resources, in a short period of time and without the need for a lot of training to apply, score and classify. For this purpose, firstly, it was necessary to understand the main difficulties highlighted by kindergarten teachers regarding the use of instruments to evaluate fine motor skills and, thus, elaborate criteria to identify and select the tests that best fit the reality of kindergartens. The test identified, selected and adapted to evaluate fine motor coordination was threading beads from the Movement Evaluation Battery for Children, 2nd Edition. The main adaptation of the test was related to time, that is, instead of counting the time it takes the child to string the total number of cubes on the string, we counted the number of cubes the child strung on the string in a pre-defined time. To evaluate visual–motor integration, the test identified, selected and adapted was the Visual–Motor Integration (6th Edition) test. The main adaptation was related to material resources, that is, it will be possible to apply the test using only one sheet per child instead of the seven suggested by the original test. After the preliminary adaptation of the tests, their validation was performed by means of the degree of reliability (test-retest) and predictive validity. The results indicated that the adapted tests presented an excellent degree of reliability (>0.9) and could therefore be used to administer them simultaneously to the class group. The adapted Visual–Motor Integration test seems to be the most suitable one to be used by kindergarten teachers, in a classroom context, to simultaneously evaluate students’ fine motor skills and associate their results with mathematical skills.
数学是许多学龄儿童发现困难的学科。文献表明，精细运动技能，即精细运动协调和视觉运动整合，与数学表现的相关性更强。研究表明，仪器必须评估这些技能的重要性，但是，这些工具的特性并不适合幼儿园的现实，它们通常既费时又昂贵，并且通常由专家管理。因此，本研究的主要目的是识别、选择、调整和验证运动测试，以评估与数学技能相关的精细运动技能，使幼儿园教师能够在短时间内以很少的物质资源同时将它们应用到课堂上，并且不需要大量培训即可应用， score 和 classify 进行评分。为此，首先，有必要了解幼儿园教师强调的关于使用工具评估精细运动技能的主要困难，从而制定标准来识别和选择最适合幼儿园实际情况的测试。识别、选择和调整以评估精细运动协调性的测试是来自儿童运动评估电池第 2 版的穿线珠子。测试的主要适应与时间有关，也就是说，我们不是计算孩子在字符串上串的立方体总数所花费的时间，而是计算孩子在预定义时间内串在字符串上的立方体数量。为了评估视觉-运动整合，确定、选择和调整的测试是视觉-运动整合（第 6 版）测试。 主要的适应与物质资源有关，也就是说，可以为每个孩子只使用一张纸而不是原始测试建议的七张纸来应用测试。在对测试进行初步调整后，通过信度（重测）和预测效度进行验证。结果表明，调整后的测试表现出极好的可靠性 （>0.9），因此可用于同时对班级组进行管理。改编后的视觉-运动统合测试似乎是最适合幼儿园教师在课堂环境中使用的一种测试，以同时评估学生的精细运动技能并将他们的结果与数学技能联系起来。

1. Introduction 1. 引言

There is evidence suggesting an interrelationship between motor and cognitive development [1,2]. Several investigations have highlighted the importance of movement in cognition, namely in the performance of mathematical skills such as abstract cognitive representations in general and in improving basic numerical representations in particular [3]. As Fischer et al. [4] propose, numbers are embodied concepts and not abstractions dissociated from sensory experiences. Furthermore, the theory of embodied cognition assumes that certain cognitive and motor areas of the brain are activated simultaneously when solving mathematical problems [5].
有证据表明运动和认知发展之间存在相互关系 [1,2]。一些研究强调了运动在认知中的重要性，即在数学技能的表现中，例如一般的抽象认知表征，特别是在改进基本数字表征方面 [3]。正如 Fischer 等人 [4] 所提出的那样，数字是具身的概念，而不是与感官体验分离的抽象概念。此外，具身认知理论假设在解决数学问题时，大脑的某些认知和运动区域会同时被激活 [5]。

Mathematics plays a major role in the school curriculum, is fundamental to learning [6,7] and can be an indicator of future academic and professional success [8]. However, it is the subject in which many school-age children experience difficulties [9,10,11,12]. Fundamental learning for the development of mathematical skills in preschool education consists of two main areas, numbers and geometry and measurement [13].
数学在学校课程中起着重要作用，是学习的基础 [6,7]，并且可以成为未来学术和职业成功的指标 [8]。然而，这是许多学龄儿童遇到困难的主题 [9,10,11,12]。在学前教育中，发展数学技能的基础学习包括两个主要领域，数字和几何以及测量[13]。

Recent systematic review studies concluded that fine motor skills (FMS) justified mathematical academic performance in preschool children [14,15,16].
最近的系统评价研究得出结论，精细运动技能 （FMS） 证明了学龄前儿童的数学学习成绩是合理的 [14,15,16]。

These skills usually coincide with fine motor coordination (FMC), which refers to movements involving eye–hand coordination (eye–hand), manual dexterity, motor sequencing and speed and accuracy. This is exhibited in tasks such as tracing, finger tapping, building with legos/blocks, moving coins from one place to another or inserting them into a slot and stringing beads. These skills are often present among other skills that refer to the precision of movement [17,18], which may also be referred to as non-graphomotor skills [19], and along with motor and visual integration or visuomotor integration (VMI) and/or visuospatial integration, which refers to the organization of small muscle movements of the hand and fingers by processing visual and spatial stimuli, relying more on synchronized hand–eye movements [17,18]. These skills are typically exhibited in tasks of writing, drawing and copying shapes, letters or other stimuli [20] and may be referred to as graphomotor skills [19].
这些技能通常与精细运动协调 （FMC） 相吻合，FMC 是指涉及眼手协调 （eye-hand）、手部灵活性、运动顺序以及速度和准确性的运动。这体现在描摹、手指敲击、用乐高积木/积木建造、将硬币从一个地方移动到另一个地方或将它们插入插槽和串珠子等任务中。这些技能通常出现在涉及运动精度的其他技能中[17,18]，这些技能也可以称为非书写运动技能[19]，以及运动和视觉整合或视觉运动整合（VMI）和/或视觉空间整合，后者是指通过处理视觉和空间刺激来组织手和手指的小肌肉运动。 更多地依赖于同步的手眼运动[17,18]。这些技能通常表现在书写、绘画和复制形状、字母或其他刺激的任务中[20]，可以称为图形运动技能[19]。

Although the literature has shown that VMI is part of the FMS, a skill standing out in association with mathematical skills [14] does not mean that this skill will be the one that can most predict math performance, since studies that included both FMS concluded that both FMC and VMI were predictors of math performance [21,22,23,24]. Studies using only FMC concluded that this motor skill was associated with mathematics performance [4,25,26] or VMI [27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Thus, each FMS was used depending on the purpose of each study [14].
尽管文献表明 VMI 是 FMS 的一部分，但与数学技能相关的突出技能 [14] 并不意味着该技能将是最能预测数学表现的技能，因为包括 FMS 的研究得出结论，FMC 和 VMI 都是数学成绩的预测因子 [21，22,23,24]。仅使用 FMC 的研究得出结论，这种运动技能与数学成绩 [4,25,26] 或 VMI [27,28,29,30,31,32,33] 相关。因此，根据每项研究的目的使用每种 FMS [14]。

In one systematic review, one of the objectives of which was to identify the instruments used to evaluate FMS associated with mathematical skills in typically developing children attending preschool education, they concluded that the main characteristics of the instruments used in the studies showed that copying picture or drawing tasks were the most commonly used to evaluate VMI and object-handling tasks with pincer-like movements were the most commonly used to evaluate FMC [14]. However, despite the fact that the literature highlights the importance that the instruments used to evaluate FMS have been screened for possible difficulties associated with mathematics performance, most of these studies used direct neuropsychological evaluations, recognizing that these instruments are usually time-consuming and expensive and are usually only administered by specialists for a certain purpose [34,35]. In this sense, the characteristics of the most commonly used instruments that evaluate FMS for diagnosing mathematics performance may present difficulties for kindergarten teachers evaluating FMS in kindergarten children in a classroom context [35].
在一项系统评价中，其目标之一是确定用于评估与接受学前教育的典型发育儿童的数学技能相关的 FMS 的工具，他们得出结论，研究中使用的工具的主要特征表明，复制图片或绘图任务是最常用于评估 VMI 的任务，而具有钳状运动的物体处理任务是最常用于评估 FMC 的工具 [14].然而，尽管文献强调了用于评估 FMS 的工具已经筛选了与数学表现相关的可能困难的重要性，但这些研究中的大多数都使用了直接的神经心理学评估，认识到这些工具通常既耗时又昂贵，并且通常仅由专家出于特定目的进行管理 [34，从这个意义上说，评估 FMS 以诊断数学成绩的最常用工具的特性可能会给幼儿园教师在课堂环境中评估幼儿园儿童的 FMS 带来困难 [35]。

Thus, the main objective of this study was to carry out a preliminary adaptation and validation of motor tests to assess the FMS associated with mathematical skills in the classroom context simultaneously for all students. For this purpose, firstly, it was necessary to identify the difficulties that kindergarten teachers have in objectively assessing the FMS of their students in the classroom context and to formulate criteria to select the motor tests that may present the least difficulties to educators for their application. Secondly, a description of the characteristics of the motor tests to assess FMS associated with mathematical skills, identified in the study by Flores et al. [14], was provided, and the tests that met a greater number of criteria were selected.
因此，本研究的主要目的是对运动测试进行初步调整和验证，以同时评估所有学生在课堂环境中与数学技能相关的 FMS。为此，首先，有必要确定幼儿园教师在课堂环境中客观评估学生的 FMS 时遇到的困难，并制定标准来选择可能对教育工作者应用造成的困难最小的运动测试。其次，描述了 Flores 等人 [14] 在研究中确定的用于评估与数学技能相关的 FMS 的运动测试的特征，并选择了满足更多标准的测试。

2. Materials and Methods 2. 材料和方法

2.1. Sample 2.1. 示例

In a first phase, with the aim of reporting the difficulties experienced by kindergarten educators assessing the FMS in their students in the classroom context, a sample of 19 kindergarten educators teaching in schools in the Municipality of Paredes (Porto, Portugal) was used, all female, aged between 44 and 60 years (mean age 50.2 years). For the preliminary validation of the degree of reliability and predictive criterion, between the motor tests adapted to assess the FMS and the assessment instrument of mathematical skills, 115 children attending preschool education at Escola Básica de Vilela, from the Agrupamento de Escolas de Vilela, Paredes (Porto, Portugal), were included. However, 5 children were excluded for not being able to perform the assessments and 5 for being born prematurely. Generally, among the most frequent problems in premature children are those associated with FMS and GMS [36,37], which negatively influence their academic performance [38,39]. Of the remaining 105 eligible children, 12 missed the FMS assessment, 7 missed the math skills assessment, and 2 missed both assessments. Therefore, the final sample consisted of 84 preschool children. Figure 1 shows the flowchart of the two study samples.
在第一阶段，为了报告幼儿园教育工作者在课堂环境中评估学生 FMS 所遇到的困难，使用了 19 名在帕雷德斯市（葡萄牙波尔图）学校任教的幼儿园教育工作者的样本，均为女性，年龄在 44 至 60 岁之间（平均年龄 50.2 岁）。为了初步验证信度和预测标准，在适用于评估 FMS 的运动测试和数学技能评估工具之间，包括来自 Agrupamento de Escolas de Vilela、Paredes（葡萄牙波尔图）的 Escola Básica de Vilela 学前教育的 115 名儿童。然而，5 名儿童因无法进行评估而被排除在外，5 名儿童因早产而被排除在外。一般来说，早产儿最常见的问题是与FMS和GMS相关的问题[36,37]，这些问题对早产儿的学习成绩产生负面影响[38,39]。在其余 105 名符合条件的儿童中，12 名错过了 FMS 评估，7 名错过了数学技能评估，2 名错过了两项评估。因此，最终样本由 84 名学龄前儿童组成。图 1 显示了两个研究样本的流程图。

Figure 1. Sample flowchart.
图 1. 示例流程图。

The 84 children were divided into 5 classes. The average age of the sample was 4.51±0.85 years. Regarding age distribution, the highest number was in the range of 5 years (40 children) and the lowest was 6 years (6 children) (Table 1).
这 84 名儿童被分为 5 个班级。样本的平均年龄为 4.51±0.85 岁。关于年龄分布，最高的数字在 5 岁（40 名儿童）范围内，最低的是 6 岁（6 名儿童）（表 1）。

Table 1. Distribution of the number of students by age range and the respective average.

Age Range	n	Average	Standard Deviation
3 years old	14	3.07	0.02
4 years old	24	4.07	0.11
5 years old	40	5.05	0.03
6 years old	6	6.02	0.01
Total	84	4.51	0.85

The sample was significant of the population (n = 105) since for a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 5%, 83 children were required [n/(1 + n × e2) where n = 105; e = 0.05].
样本在人群中是显著的 （n = 105），因为对于 95% 的置信水平和 5% 的误差幅度，需要 83 名儿童 [n/（1 + n × e2） 其中 n = 105;e = 0.05]。

A request for authorization was sent to the parent so that the child could participate in the study. The request for authorization described all the tests that the child would perform and informed them that the data collected were confidential and only used in this research.
已向家长发送授权请求，以便孩子可以参与研究。授权请求描述了孩子将进行的所有测试，并告诉他们收集的数据是机密的，仅用于本研究。

All procedures were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki for research in human beings.
所有程序均符合《赫尔辛基人类研究宣言》。

2.2. Instruments 2.2. 工具

2.2.1. Questionnaire to Kindergarten Teachers to Obtain Information on the Objective Evaluation of FMS in Their Students
2.2.1. 幼儿园教师问卷，以获取有关学生 FMS 客观评估的信息

In order to obtain information regarding the objective evaluations of FMS carried out by kindergarten teachers on their students, a questionnaire was prepared in which the first part intended to describe its purpose and the characterization and importance of FMS in mathematical performance. The second part consisted of four questions: question 1, “Do you objectively evaluate fine motor skills of your students in the classroom context?”. This question allowed us to identify how often kindergarten teachers evaluate the FMS of their students; question 2, “If you answered yes to the first question, what instrument do you use to carry out this evaluation?”. This question allowed us to identify the instruments used in this evaluation; question 3, “Have you ever used any of the instruments presented in the table to evaluate the fine motor skills of your students?”. This question allowed us to know if the kindergarten teacher had already administered any of the instruments identified in the study carried out by Flores et al. [14] to evaluate the FMS associated with mathematical skills; question 4, “What are the main difficulties you find in evaluating fine motor skills of your students in the classroom context?”. This question allowed us to identify the main difficulties that kindergarten teachers have when evaluating the FMS of their students in the classroom context.
为了获得有关幼儿园教师对学生进行的 FMS 客观评估的信息，准备了一份问卷，其中第一部分旨在描述其目的以及 FMS 在数学表现中的特征和重要性。第二部分由四个问题组成：问题 1，“您是否在课堂环境中客观地评估学生的精细运动技能？这个问题使我们能够确定幼儿园教师评估学生 FMS 的频率;问题 2，“如果您对第一个问题的回答是肯定的，您使用什么工具进行此评估？这个问题使我们能够确定本次评估中使用的工具;问题 3，“你有没有使用过表格中介绍的任何工具来评估学生的精细运动技能？这个问题让我们知道幼儿园老师是否已经使用了 Flores 等人 [14] 进行的研究中确定的任何工具，以评估与数学技能相关的 FMS;问题 4，“在课堂环境中评估学生的精细运动技能时，您发现的主要困难是什么？这个问题使我们能够确定幼儿园教师在课堂环境中评估学生的 FMS 时遇到的主要困难。

At the end of the questionnaire, a space was reserved for kindergarten teachers to report the necessary observations.
在问卷结束时，为幼儿园教师预留了一个空间来报告必要的观察结果。

2.2.2. Evaluation of FMS Associated with Mathematical Skills
2.2.2. 与数学技能相关的 FMS 评估

For the selection of motor tests to assess FMS, the tests identified in the study conducted by Flores et al. [14] were included.
为了选择评估 FMS 的运动测试，包括 Flores 等 [14] 进行的研究中确定的测试。

To assess FMC, the following tests were included: Grooved Pegboard Test (GPT), which consists of fitting pins into holes [40]; inserting coins and threading beads from the manual dexterity scale, Band 1, of the Movement Evaluation Battery for Children, 2nd Edition (MABC-2) [41]; battery designed to provide an estimate of fine motor skills of preschool children (BEFMS), three tests, inserting pins, threading beads and turning blocks [42]; object manipulation subscale of the Learning Accomplishment Profile-Diagnostic, 3rd Edition (LAP-D) [43]; visuomotor accuracy subtest of the NEuroPSYchological evaluation battery, 2nd Edition (NEPSY) [44]; manipulation subscale of the Peabody developmental motor scale, 2nd Edition (PDMS-2) [45].
为了评估 FMC，包括以下测试：沟槽钉板测试 （GPT），包括将销钉安装到孔中 [40];从儿童运动评估电池，第 2 版 （MABC-2） [41] 的手动灵巧量表 1 级中插入硬币和穿珠;旨在提供学龄前儿童精细运动技能 （BEFMS） 估计的电池、3 项测试、插入针、穿珠和转动块 [42];学习成就概况-诊断，第 3 版 （LAP-D） 的对象操作分量表 [43];NEuroPSYchological Evaluation 电池的视觉运动准确性子测试，第 2 版 （NEPSY） [44];皮博迪发育运动量表第 2 版 （PDMS-2） 的操作分量表 [45]。

To assess VMI, the following tests were included: Fine Motor Scale, The Brigance Inventory of Early Development III—Standardized (IED III) [46]; Test of Visual–Motor Integration, 6th Edition (VMI) [47]; Copy Design Task (CDT) [48]; subtest design copying of the NEPSY [44]; writing subscale of the LAP-D [43]; visuomotor integration subtests of the PDMS-2 [45].
为了评估 VMI，包括以下测试：精细运动量表、早期发育 Brigance 量表 III - 标准化 （IED III） [46];视觉-运动整合测试，第 6 版 （VMI） [47];Copy Design 任务 （CDT） [48];NEPSY 的子测试设计复制 [44];LAP-D 的写作分量表 [43];PDMS-2 的视觉运动统合子测试 [45]。

2.2.3. Mathematical Skills Diagnosis
2.2.3. 数学技能诊断

The Weschler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised (WPPSI-R) [49] was used to diagnose mathematical skills. This scale was reviewed and adapted to the Portuguese population and covers the age groups from 3 to 6 years old and 6 months [50]. Applicators should be experienced and strictly follow the administration instructions and quotation. It can be applied anywhere, as long as it is quiet and free of external distractions (if possible, avoid placing the child in front of windows). It should be used at a table low enough so that the child can work comfortably and be seated on a chair, which allows the child to rest their feet on the floor. The applicator should sit in front of the child and provide a collaborative and cooperative environment so that the child feels comfortable and available to cooperate and respond to the demands imposed by the tests. The applicator should only start the test when the child is comfortable. During the application of the test, the applicator should demonstrate enthusiasm and interest in the child’s work, praising the child’s effort. However, they should not tell the child “That’s OK” or “That’s right” after a correct answer. If the child cannot answer a question, the applicator should encourage the child by saying “Try it” or “I bet you can do it, try again”. However, they should not insist excessively, as this could frustrate the child. Sometimes the child gives two or more answers to a question. In this case, if the child’s intention is to replace a previous answer, the initial answer is ignored and only the last one is scored. If the child simultaneously gives a correct and an incorrect answer, the applicator should ask them to choose one of the two.
Weschler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised （WPPSI-R） [49] 用于诊断数学技能。该量表针对葡萄牙人群进行了审查和调整，涵盖了 3-6 岁和 6 个月龄的年龄组 [50]。施工人员应经验丰富，并严格遵守管理说明和报价。它可以应用于任何地方，只要它安静且没有外界干扰（如果可能，避免将孩子放在窗前）。它应该在足够低的桌子上使用，以便孩子可以舒适地工作，并坐在椅子上，这样孩子就可以把脚放在地板上。涂抹器应坐在孩子面前，并提供一个协作和合作的环境，以便孩子感到舒适并可以合作和响应测试施加的要求。涂抹器只能在孩子感到舒适时开始测试。在应用测试期间，施药者应表现出对孩子工作的热情和兴趣，表扬孩子的努力。但是，他们不应该在正确回答后告诉孩子 “That's OK” 或 “That's right”。如果孩子无法回答问题，涂抹者应该通过说“试试”或“我敢打赌你能做到，再试一次”来鼓励孩子。但是，他们不应该过分坚持，因为这可能会让孩子感到沮丧。有时孩子会对一个问题给出两个或多个答案。在这种情况下，如果孩子打算替换前一个答案，则忽略初始答案，仅对最后一个答案进行评分。如果孩子同时给出正确答案和错误答案，施药者应要求他们从两者中选择一个。

The WPPSI-R is composed of two subscales, the Achievement subscale (comprising the subtests Composing Objects, Geometric Figures, Squares, Labyrinths, Completing Pictures and Animal Board) and the Verbal subscale (comprising the subtests Information, Comprehension, Arithmetic, Vocabulary, Similarities and Memorized Sentences). In this study, the Arithmetic test of Verbal subscale was used, where quantitative concepts, counting and problems, presented orally to the child, are evaluated. This test consists of 23 items divided into 3 parts. (i) Quantitative skills, picture items (items 1 to 7), where the child must point out, among a set of objects, visually presented, the one with a quantitative characteristic verbally stated. For this test, a large stimulus notebook with images is required. (ii) Numeracy skills, counting items (items 8 to 11), where the child should demonstrate numerical knowledge by counting and manipulating blocks. (iii) Problem-solving skills, verbal items (items 12 to 23), where the child should solve arithmetic problems presented orally.
WPPSI-R 由两个分量表组成，成就分量表（包括构成物体、几何图形、正方形、迷宫、完成图片和动物板子测试）和语言子量表（包括子测试信息、理解、算术、词汇、相似性和记忆句子）。在这项研究中，使用了语言分量表的算术测试，其中评估了口头呈现给儿童的定量概念、计数和问题。本测试由 23 个项目组成，分为 3 个部分。（i） 定量技能，图片项目（第 1 至 7 项），孩子必须在一组物体中指出，以视觉方式呈现，口头陈述具有定量特征的物体。对于此测试，需要一个带有图像的大型刺激笔记本。（ii） 算术技能，数物品（第 8 至 11 项），孩子应该通过数和操作积木来展示数字知识。（iii） 解决问题的技能，口头项目（第 12 至 23 项），孩子应该解决口头提出的算术问题。

The test should start at item 1. Although there is no time limit for the child to answer, after 15 s for items 1 to 11 and 30 s for items 12 to 23, a 0 score should be given and the applicator should move on to the next item. One point shall be awarded for each correct response (maximum score 23 points), and the test is interrupted after 5 failures. The raw scores are converted into standard scores, and a profile is obtained. Standardized results vary between 1 and 19, with 10 representing the mean value with a standard deviation of 3.
测试应从第 1 项开始。虽然孩子回答没有时间限制，但第 1 项到 11 项在 15 秒后，第 12 项到 23 项在 30 秒后，应给出 0 分，施药者应继续进行下一项。每个正确答案应得 1 分（最高 23 分），考试不及格 5 次后中断。原始分数将转换为标准分数，并获取用户档案。标准化结果在 1 到 19 之间变化，其中 10 表示平均值，标准差为 3。

2.3. Procedures 2.3. 程序

The first objective (i) allowed us to obtain information from kindergarten teachers on the objective evaluation of FMS, in the classroom context, in their students. For this purpose, kindergarten teachers were informally asked to fill in the questionnaire (June 2022). We tried to have kindergarten teachers teach in different schools to check how many schools could evaluate FMS and avoid similar answers. The questionnaire was delivered in person, completed and collected on time. The results of the questionnaire allowed us to identify the main difficulties expressed by kindergarten teachers when objectively evaluating FMS of their students in the classroom context. These difficulties did not take into consideration the rigorous characteristics of the motor tests, only the kindergarten teachers‘ informed judgment. The difficulties expressed by the kindergarten teachers contributed to developing criteria with the aim of identifying the motor tests that presented fewer difficulties so that these can be applied simultaneously by kindergarten teachers to their students in the classroom context.
第一个目标 （i） 使我们能够从幼儿园教师那里获得有关课堂环境中学生 FMS 客观评估的信息。为此，非正式地要求幼儿园教师填写问卷（2022 年 6 月）。我们尝试让幼儿园老师在不同的学校任教，以检查有多少学校可以评估 FMS 并避免类似的答案。问卷是亲自交付的，按时完成和收集。问卷的结果使我们能够确定幼儿园教师在课堂环境中客观评估学生的 FMS 时所表达的主要困难。这些困难没有考虑运动测试的严格特性，只考虑了幼儿园老师的知情判断。幼儿园教师表达的困难有助于制定标准，目的是确定难度较小的运动测试，以便幼儿园教师可以在课堂环境中同时将这些测试应用于学生。

The second objective (ii) described the characteristics of the motor tests to evaluate FMS associated with mathematical skills identified in the study of Flores et al. [14] and identified and selected those that met a greater number of criteria.
第二个目标 （ii） 描述了运动测试的特征，以评估与 Flores 等人 [14] 研究中确定的数学技能相关的 FMS，并确定和选择满足更多标准的测试。

After the selection of the tests, the third objective (iii) presented a preliminary proposal for the adaptation of the selected motor tests for the possibility of these tests being used by kindergarten teachers in the simultaneous evaluation of FMS in their students in the classroom context. After the adaptation, a preliminary validation of the tests was performed regarding their stability and predictive criterion validation. Figure 2 summarize the objectives.
在选择测试之后，第三个目标 （iii） 提出了一个初步建议，用于调整选定的运动测试，以便幼儿园教师在课堂环境中使用这些测试同时评估学生的 FMS。适应后，对测试的稳定性和预测标准验证进行了初步验证。图 2 总结了目标。

Figure 2. Summary of the study objectives.
图 2. 研究目标总结。

The application of the adapted motor tests and the WPPSI-R was carried out by a single investigator (intra-observer). The investigator was the same person who carried out the preliminary adaptation of the motor tests in this study. To apply the WPPSI-R arithmetic test, he was instructed by a psychologist specialized in the area. The stability study aimed to measure the degree of reliability of the tests applied simultaneously at 2 different times to the class group (test-retest) and when applied individually. In the individual evaluations, for reasons of time, of the 84 children included in the study, 30 children (6 per class) were randomly selected in a systematic way (in an interval of 3 following the class list). The study of the predictive criterion validation between the adapted motor tests and the WPPSI-R arithmetic test aimed to analyze the association between FMS and mathematical skills.
适应性运动测试和 WPPSI-R 的应用由一名研究者（观察者内部）进行。研究者是在本研究中对运动测试进行初步调整的同一人。为了应用 WPPSI-R 算术测试，他接受了该领域专门心理学家的指导。稳定性研究旨在衡量在 2 个不同时间同时应用于班级组（重测）和单独应用的测试的可靠性程度。在个人评估中，由于时间原因，在研究包括的 84 名儿童中，系统地随机选择了 30 名儿童（每班 6 名）（班级列表后间隔 3 名）。调整运动测试和 WPPSI-R 算术测试之间的预测标准验证研究旨在分析 FMS 与数学技能之间的关联。

Firstly, to test the adapted motor tests, a pilot study was carried out with 4 children, aged 3, 4, 5 and 6, different from those who made up the final sample. This study aimed to verify whether it would be necessary to make adjustments to the materials or procedures for the application of the adapted motor tests. Regardless of their age, no child showed any difficulty in understanding and performing the adapted motor tests; in this sense, there was no need to make any adjustments.
首先，为了测试适应的运动测试，对 4 名年龄分别为 3、4、5 和 6 岁的儿童进行了一项试点研究，这些儿童与构成最终样本的儿童不同。本研究旨在验证是否有必要调整材料或程序以应用适应的电机测试。无论他们的年龄大小，都没有孩子在理解和执行适应的运动测试方面表现出任何困难;从这个意义上说，没有必要做任何调整。

To measure the degree of reliability, and considering an interval of 10 to 14 days between the test-retest [51], the adapted motor tests were applied to the class simultaneously, during the morning period, on 16th March 2023 for the first time (test) and repeated on the 27th of March 2023 (retest). The simultaneous application of the adapted motor tests to the class, from the distribution of the materials to their collection, lasted a minimum of 20 min and a maximum of 27 min, with a longer period for the classes with younger children (3 and 4 years old). In turn, the individual application of the adapted tests was performed during the morning period on 30th March 2023. To measure the predictive criterion validity, the WPPSI-R Arithmetic test was applied on the 20th, 22nd, 23rd and 24th of March 2023.
为了衡量可靠性的程度，并考虑到重测 [51] 之间的间隔为 10 至 14 天，调整后的运动测试在 2023 年 3 月 16 日上午同时应用于该级别（测试）和 2023 年 3 月 27 日重复（重测）。从材料分发到收集，将适应性运动测试同时应用于课堂，持续最少 20 分钟，最多持续 27 分钟，对于年龄较小的孩子（3 岁和 4 岁）的课程，时间更长。反过来，调整后的测试的单独应用是在 2023 年 3 月 30 日上午进行的。为了衡量预测标准的有效性，于 2023 年 3 月 20 日、22 日、23 日和 24 日进行了 WPPSI-R 算术检验。

2.4. Data Analysis 2.4. 数据分析

Descriptive statistics were used to describe the sample characteristics, namely frequencies, mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum.
描述性统计用于描述样本特征，即频率、平均值、标准差、最小值和最大值。

Prevalence, number (n) and percentage (%) were used to analyze the results of the questionnaire answered by the kindergarten teachers. In order to identify the motor tests, which were more adjusted to the objective of the study, we used the sum (∑) of the difficulties shown by the kindergarten teacher in the application of motor tests to evaluate the FMS of their students.
患病率、数字 （n） 和百分比 （%） 用于分析幼儿园教师回答的问卷结果。为了确定更适合研究目标的运动测试，我们使用了幼儿园教师在应用运动测试时表现出的困难的总和 （∑） 来评估学生的 FMS。

The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to analyze the degree of reliability of the adapted motor tests [52]. Based on the 95% confidence interval of the ICC estimate, values less than 0.5, between 0.5 and 0.75, between 0.75 and 0.9 and greater than 0.90 are indicative of poor, moderate, good and excellent reliability, respectively [53].
类内相关系数 （ICC） 用于分析适应的运动测试的可靠性程度 [52]。根据ICC估计值的95%置信区间，小于0.5、0.5-0.75、0.75-0.9和大于0.90的值分别表示差、中等、好和极好的信度[53]。

To analyze the predictive criterion validity, Simple Linear Regression (Pearson—R2) was used, in which values equal to 2% were classified as a small effect, 13% as a medium effect and 26% as a large effect [54]. Since the studied variables obtained a normal distribution by the Kormorgonov–Smirvov test, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used to associate the variables. The magnitude of the correlation was classified as trivial (r ≤ 0.1), small (0.1 < r < 0.3), moderate (0.3 < r < 0.5), strong (0.5 < r < 0.7), very strong (0.7 < r < 0.9) or almost perfect (r ≥ 0.9) [55]. A 95% confidence level was set for a p < 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows Version 26.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
为了分析预测标准的有效性，使用了简单线性回归 （Pearson-R2），其中等于 2% 的值被归类为小效应，13% 为中等效应，26% 为大效应 [54]。由于研究的变量通过 Kormorgonov-Smirvov 检验获得正态分布，因此使用 Pearson 相关系数 （r） 来关联变量。相关性的大小分为微不足道（r ≤ 0.1）、小（0.1 < r < 0.3）、中等（0.3 < r < 0.5）、强（0.5 < r < 0.7）、非常强（0.7 < r < 0.9）或近乎完美（r ≥ 0.9）[55]。将 p 设置为 95% 置信水平< 0.05。使用 SPSS for Windows Version 26.0 （SPSS Inc.， Chicago， IL， USA） 进行统计分析。

3. Results 3. 结果

3.1. Identification of Kindergarten Teachers’ Difficulties in Objectively Evaluating FMS of Their Students in the Classroom Context and Formulation of Criteria for Selection of Motor Tests
3.1. 确定幼儿园教师在课堂环境中客观评估学生 FMS 的困难以及制定运动测试选择标准

The first objective of this study was to verify whether kindergarten teachers objectively evaluated the FMS of their students in the classroom context, determine which instruments they used for that purpose and identify the main difficulties highlighted in the evaluation.
本研究的第一个目的是验证幼儿园教师是否在课堂环境中客观地评估了学生的 FMS，确定他们为此目的使用了哪些工具，并确定了评估中强调的主要困难。

Regarding the first question, which aimed to identify the frequency of kindergarten teachers who evaluated FMS of their students in the classroom context, it was found that no kindergarten teacher did so (0%), thus they did not use any instrument for this purpose. This fact answered questions 2 and 3, which asked, respectively, which instrument they used to objectively evaluate FMS and whether they used any of the instruments identified in the study of Flores et al. [14].
关于第一个问题，旨在确定幼儿园教师在课堂环境中评估学生 FMS 的频率，发现没有幼儿园教师这样做 （0%），因此他们没有为此目的使用任何工具。这一事实回答了问题 2 和 3，分别询问了他们使用哪种工具来客观评估 FMS，以及他们是否使用了 Flores 等人 [14] 研究中确定的任何工具。

Regarding question 4, it aimed to identify the main difficulties highlighted by kindergarten teachers when evaluating FMS of their students in the classroom context (Table 2).
关于问题 4，它旨在确定幼儿园教师在课堂环境中评估学生的 FMS 时强调的主要困难（表 2）。

Table 2. Difficulties shown by kindergarten teachers when evaluating FMS, in the classroom context, of their students.

Reasons for Non-Implementation	Number/Percentage
Lack of training.	18/95%
Expensive material resources.	18/95%
Instruments with many tasks to evaluate (complex).	17/89%
Lack of time.	16/84%
Too many students per class.	14/74%
Too heterogeneous ages of students to apply the same test.	12/63%
Lack of knowledge of the association between FMS and mathematical skills.	9/47%

The most frequent difficulties that justified not evaluating FMS in the classroom context were the lack of training (95%) and expensive material resources (95%). Also noteworthy is the fact that most of the instruments present many tasks to be evaluated (89%) and the lack of time (84%), which can be justified by the high number of students per class (74%). Another significant justification was the fact that the classes had students with very heterogeneous ages (63%). The lowest percentage was attributed to the lack of knowledge of the association between FMS and mathematical skills (47%) (Table 2). At the end of the questionnaire, there was a space for kindergarten teachers to describe any observations they considered relevant. Most kindergarten teachers (79%) explained that despite not evaluating FMS of their students, they do work a lot on these skills in the classroom, namely with tasks such as cutting with scissors, construction with different objects, buttoning and unbuttoning buttons, copying figures and shapes, drawing lines between spaces and between objects, painting, folding and collage and sticking objects in holes. Considering the results obtained by the questionnaire regarding the difficulties presented by kindergarten teachers in the evaluation of FMS, criteria were formulated to identify the motor tests with the most appropriate characteristics for kindergarten teachers to use in the evaluation of FMS simultaneously with their students in the classroom context. In this sense, the main difficulties highlighted were lack of training, lack of material resources, very complex instruments with many tasks to evaluate, lack of time, many students per class, very heterogeneous ages and lack of knowledge of the association between FMS and mathematical skills. Thus, for each of the difficulties highlighted by the kindergarten teachers, criteria were formulated to allow identification of the tests that would best fit the purpose of the study (Table 3).
在课堂环境中不评估 FMS 的最常见困难是缺乏培训 （95%） 和昂贵的材料资源 （95%）。同样值得注意的是，大多数工具都提出了许多需要评估的任务 （89%） 和缺乏时间 （84%），这可以通过每个班级的学生人数多 （74%） 来证明。另一个重要的理由是，这些班级的学生年龄非常不同 （63%）。最低的百分比归因于缺乏 FMS 与数学技能之间关联的知识 （47%） （表 2）。在问卷的最后，有一个空间供幼儿园教师描述他们认为相关的任何观察结果。大多数幼儿园教师 （79%） 解释说，尽管没有评估学生的 FMS，但他们在课堂上确实在这些技能上做了很多工作，即用剪刀剪、用不同物体构建、扣子和解扣纽扣、复制图形和形状、在空间之间和物体之间画线、绘画、折叠和拼贴以及将物体粘在洞中。考虑到问卷中获得的关于幼儿园教师在 FMS 评估中提出的困难的结果，制定了标准以确定具有最合适特征的运动测试，供幼儿园教师在课堂环境中与学生同时用于 FMS 评估。 从这个意义上说，突出的主要困难是缺乏培训、缺乏物质资源、非常复杂的工具，需要评估许多任务、缺乏时间、每个班级的学生很多、年龄非常异质以及缺乏 FMS 与数学技能之间关联的知识。因此，对于幼儿园教师强调的每一个困难，制定了标准，以允许确定最适合研究目的的测试（表 3）。

Table 3. Formulation of criteria for the identification of motor tests that evaluated FMS associated with mathematical skills [14], taking into account the difficulties presented by kindergarten teachers in their application in the classroom context.

Difficulties of Kindergarten Teachers			Criteria for Identifying Motor Tests to Respond to the Difficulties Shown by Kindergarten Teachers
Lack of training	A	To apply (complexity)	Minimum number of tasks to apply. A minimum number of tasks generally requires less training for the applicator and less learning for the applicant.
	B	To score	The test must obey a minimum number of scoring criteria (example: execution time or number of executions or execution error, etc.). This criterion facilitates learning, analysis and interpretation of test results.
	C	Score type	It should be quantitative, and it allows a more objective evaluation and requires less experience since the final result will depend only on the performance of the evaluated and not on a subjective observation by the evaluator.
Material resources	D	Expensive	Inexpensive, easily acquired or accessed.
Many students	E	Lack of time	Evaluation should be as short as possible given the high number of students per class.
	F	Application type	Possibility of the test being applied to groups of students simultaneously. This criterion significantly reduces the application time.
Heterogeneous ages	G	Test age range	The tests should include the age range of 3 to 6 years. This criterion is justified by the fact that preschool education generally starts at age 3 and lasts until age 6 [13] before children start compulsory education (Schulman & Barnett. 2005).
	H	Uniformity	The test should be the same for all ages (3, 4, 5 and 6 years old), only the degree of difficulty should increase with increasing age. In this sense, children may perform the same task simultaneously in the classroom context—inclusive test.
Lack of knowledge	I	Association between FMS and mathematical skills	The test should be associated with a greater number of mathematical skills.

Considering the kindergarten teachers’ difficulties, nine criteria were formulated, from A to I, to assist in the identification of the motor tests that best fit the purpose of this study (Table 3).
考虑到幼儿园教师的困难，制定了从 A 到 I 的九项标准，以帮助确定最适合本研究目的的运动测试（表 3）。

Thus, according to the characteristics of the tests, these were scored according to the formulated criteria (Table 3). If the criterion was respected, a point would be attributed, otherwise zero points. In this sense, the following score was proposed for each criterion:
因此，根据测试的特性，这些是根据制定的标准进行评分的（表 3）。如果符合该标准，则将授予 1 分，否则为 0 分。从这个意义上说，为每个标准提出了以下分数：

Criterion A (number of tasks to apply)—tests that presented only one task to apply were scored one point, otherwise they were scored zero points;
标准 A （Number of tasks to apply） — 仅提出一项要申请的任务的测试得 1 分，否则得 0 分;

Criterion B (number of criteria to score)—tests that presented more than one criterion to score were scored zero points;
标准 B（评分标准数）——提出多个评分标准的测试得分为零分;

Criterion C (scoring type)—only tests with a score based on quantitative evaluations were scored with one point;
标准 C（评分类型）——只有基于定量评估的分数的测试才得 1 分;

Criterion D (materials for application)—tests that required cheap and easily accessible or acquired materials were scored one point;
标准 D（申请材料）——需要廉价且易于获得或获得材料的测试得 1 分;

Criterion E (application time)—only the tests that presented the shortest application time were scored with one point;
标准 E（申请时间）——只有申请时间最短的测试才得 1 分;

Criterion F (type of application)—only tests that allowed for simultaneous application to groups of students were scored one point;
标准 F（申请类型）——只有允许同时申请学生群体的考试得 1 分;

Criterion G (age range)—only tests that allowed an application between the ages of 3 and 6 years old were scored with one point;
标准 G（年龄范围）——只有允许 3 至 6 岁申请的测试才得 1 分;

Criterion H (uniformity)—only tests in which the tasks to be applied would be the same regardless of age were scored with one point;
标准 H（一致性）——只有无论年龄大小，要应用的任务都相同的测试才得 1 分;

Criterion I (number of associated mathematical skills)—tests that were associated with a higher number of mathematical skills were scored with one point.
标准 I（相关数学技能的数量）— 与较多数学技能相关的测试得 1 分。

3.2. Characteristics of Motor Tests to Evaluate FMS in the Classroom Context and Identification and Selection of Those Who Obeyed a Greater Number of the Formulated Criteria
3.2. 在课堂环境中评估 FMS 的运动测试特征以及识别和选择遵守更多制定标准的人

Another objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of the motor tests to evaluate the FMS and to identify and select those that complied with a higher number of criteria. For this purpose, initially, the characteristics of the tests to evaluate the FMC and the VMI were described and presented and, according to the criteria formulated, those which obtained a higher score were identified.
本研究的另一个目的是描述运动测试的特性，以评估 FMS 并识别和选择符合更多标准的测试。为此，最初描述并展示了评估 FMC 和 VMI 的测试的特征，并根据制定的标准确定了获得更高分数的测试。

3.2.1. Identification of Tests to Evaluate the FMC According to the Criteria Formulated
3.2.1. 根据制定的标准确定评估 FMC 的测试

Table 4 presents the instruments and the description of the respective tests evaluating FMC used in association with mathematical skills [14].
表 4 列出了评估与数学技能相关的 FMC 的工具和相关测试的描述 [14]。

Table 4. Description of the tests used to evaluate FMC that were associated with mathematical skills in children of preschool education [14].

Instruments and Respective Tests	Tests Description
GPT [40]	It consists of a metal surface with a matrix of 5 by 5 keyhole-shaped holes in various orientations. During the task, the child is instructed to insert all the pins into the 25 holes, 1 at a time, as quickly as possible and from left to right, first with the dominant hand and then with the non-dominant hand.
MABC-2 Band 1—Manual Dexterity [41]	The insert coins and threading beads tests of band 1 (3–6 years) were used. Insert coins—insert coins into a box as quickly as possible. Children aged 3 to 4 years old, 6 coins; children aged 5 to 6 years old, 12 coins. They should use their dominant hand first and then their non-dominant hand, with the fastest being scored. Threading beads—thread cubes on a string, with a metal pointed tip, as fast as possible. Children aged 3 to 4 years old, 6 cubes; children aged 5 to 6 years old, 12 cubes.
BEFMS Tasks for Evaluating FMS [42].	Three tasks were used: pegboard, thread beads and turn the block. Pegboard task—insert up to 24 pins (4 cm long × 5 mm diameter), which are taken from a bowl, into a pegboard (wooden board) to form a line as quickly as possible. Before the child starts the task, the evaluator should demonstrate it by moving 3 pins, then the child should practice using 5 pins. The score represents the number of pins inserted in 35 s. String beads—children are instructed to string up to 20 beads (1.5 cm in diameter) on a metal rod (30 cm high), 1 at a time, which are inside a small container. If the child drops a bead on the floor, he/she must continue the task without collecting the dropped bead. Before the test, the evaluator should demonstrate the task with 3 beads, and the child should subsequently practice with 3 beads. Children’s scores represent the number of beads strung in 60 s. Turn the block—children must turn 16 small cylindrical blocks (4 cm in diameter and 3 cm high) that are inserted in slots in a wooden board. They must first turn the block to the opposite position and then turn it to the same position. Before the test, the evaluator should demonstrate the task with three cylinders and then the child practices also with three cylinders before starting the attempt. The final score is the number of cylinders turned over in 28 s.
LAP-D Manipulation Subscale [43]	It includes the tasks of building towers, steps and bridges with small tower blocks; threading string through holes; stringing beads on a string; turning pages of a book; placing pins on a pegboard; cutting with scissors; manipulating plasticine; and folding paper into different shapes. Evaluators are instructed to demonstrate the task first. Tasks are scored as correct (+) or incorrect (−). The final score is the total number of correct tasks.
NEPSY Visuomotor Accuracy Subtest [44]	Draw lines quickly within paths/tracks that progress from wide to narrow and from straight to curves. Scoring takes into account the time taken, total number of errors (number of times the line leaves the track) and total pencil lifts.
PDMS-2 Manipulation Subscale [45]	The child starts the test in the task adjusted to his/her age and continues in the sequence until failing the execution of three consecutive tasks. The motor tasks are picking up cubes, picking up the marker, buttoning and unbuttoning buttons and touching fingers. Initially, the ability to grasp an object with only one hand is tested, gradually evolving to finger involvement and bilateral activities. Each task is graded according to a fixed rating scale: 0 if the child cannot or does not attempt to perform the task; 1 if the child’s performance shows minimal proficiency or they do not complete the task; 2 if the child demonstrates optimal proficiency in performing the task.

Legend. BEFMS—battery designed to provide an estimate of children’s fine motor skills in preschool; LAP-D—Learning Accomplishment Profile-Diagnostic (Third Edition); GPT—Grooved Pegboard Test; MABC-2—Movement Evaluation Battery for Children (Second Edition); NEPSY—NEuroPSYchological evaluation battery; PDMS-2—Peabody developmental motor scale (Second Edition).

Table 5 presents the specific characteristics of the tests that evaluated FMC according to the formulated criteria.
表 5 显示了根据制定的标准评估 FMC 的测试的具体特征。

Table 5. Characteristics of the tests used to evaluate FMC that were associated with mathematical skills in children in preschool education [14] according to the formulated criteria.

Criteria
Tests	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I
GPT	1	1 (execution time)	Quantitative	Difficult access or acquisition	Less than 5 min	Individual	5 70	Equal to all ages	3
MABC-2 Band 1—Manual Dexterity	2	1 (execution time)	Quantitative	Easy access or acquisition	Less than 5 min	Individual	3 6	Equal to all ages	3
BEFMS Tasks for Evaluating FMS	3	1 (execution time)	Quantitative	Difficult access or acquisition	Less than 10 min	Individual	3 6	Equal to all ages	4
LAP-D Manipulation Subscale	28	1 (execution time)	Qualitative	Easy access or acquisition	More than 10 min	Individual	2.5 6	Age-adjusted	4
NEPSY Visuomotor Accuracy Subtest	1	3 (time, number and execution error)	Quantitative	Easy access or acquisition	Less than 5 min	Individual	3 12	Equal to all ages	3
PDMS-2 Manipulation Subscale	26	1 (execution error)	Qualitative	Easy access or acquisition	More than 10 min	Individual	0 5.9	Age-adjusted	2

Legend. A—number of tasks to apply; B—number of criteria to score the test; C—type of scoring; D—materials; E—application time; F—type of application; G—age range; H—uniformity of the test; I—number of associated mathematical skills; BEFMS—battery designed to provide an estimate of children’s fine motor skills in preschool; LAP-D—Learning Accomplishment Profile-Diagnostic (Third Edition); GPT—Grooved Pegboard Test; MABC-2—Movement Evaluation Battery for Children (Second Edition); NEPSY—NEuroPSYchological evaluation battery; PDMS-2—Peabody developmental motor scale (Second Edition).

Thus, considering for this purpose the characteristics of the tests that evaluated the FMC, an attempt was made to identify those that met a greater number of formulated criteria (Table 6).
因此，为此目的，考虑到评估 FMC 的测试的特征，我们试图确定那些满足更多制定标准的测试（表 6）。

Table 6. Scores of the tests used to evaluate the FMC that were associated with mathematical skills in preschool education children according to the formulated criteria.

Formulated Criteria	Instruments and Respective Tests
	GPT	MABC-2	BEFMS	LAP-D	NEPSY	PDMS-2
	GPT	Band 1: Manual Dexterity	FMS Evaluation Tasks	Manipulation Subscale	Visuomotor Accuracy Subtest	Grip Subscale
A—number of tasks to be applied	1	0	0	0	1	0
B—number of criteria to score	1	1	1	1	0	1
C—type of scoring	1	1	1	0	1	0
D—materials	0	1	0	1	1	1
E—application time	1	1	0	0	1	0
F—type of application	0	0	0	0	0	0
G—age range	0	1	1	1	1	0
H—test uniformity	1	1	1	0	1	0
I—mathematical abilities	0	0	1	1	0	0
Score	5	6	5	4	6	2

Legend. BEFMS—battery designed to provide an estimate of children’s fine motor skills in preschool; LAP-D—Learning Accomplishment Profile-Diagnostic (Third Edition); GPT—Grooved Pegboard Test; MABC-2—Movement Evaluation Battery for Children (Second Edition); NEPSY—NEuroPSYchological evaluation battery; PDMS-2—Peabody developmental motor scale (Second Edition).

According to the data in Table 6, the highest scoring tests, and therefore those that can most easily be used to evaluate FMC, were the band 1: Manual Dexterity, insert coins and threading beads tests of the MABC-2 [41] and the visuomotor accuracy subtest of the NEPSY [44], both scoring 6 points.
根据表 6 中的数据，得分最高的测试，因此最容易用于评估 FMC 的测试是 MABC-2 [41] 的 1 级：手动灵巧性、插入硬币和穿线珠测试以及 NEPSY [44] 的视觉运动准确性子测试，均得分 6 分。

3.2.2. Identification of Tests to Evaluate VMI According to the Criteria Formulated
3.2.2. 根据制定的标准确定评估 VMI 的测试

Table 7 presents the instruments and the description of the respective tests that evaluated VMI used in association with mathematical skills [14].
表 7 列出了评估 VMI 与数学技能相关的工具和各自测试的描述 [14]。

Table 7. Instruments and description of the respective tests used to evaluate the VMI that were associated with mathematical skills in preschool education children [14].

Instrument	Tests Description
IED III Fine Motor Subscale of the Physical Development Domain [46]	The tasks require the use of pencil and paper and consist of copying pictures, drawing a person, writing the sequence of numbers and sequential drawing of capital letters. The tasks to be completed depend on the age of the child. Children receive a score of 1 for each successfully completed task.
VMI Visuomotor Integration Test [47]	It requires the use of pencil and paper and requires the student to copy increasingly complex geometric figures. One point is awarded for each item correctly copied, and the test must be stopped after three consecutive failures. Children under 5 years old start the test at item 4, and those aged 5 or more start the test at item 7.
LAP-D Writing Subscale [43]	They include tasks that require the use of pencil and paper, such as copying numbers, letters and shapes and drawing simple objects such as people and houses. Items are scored as correct (+) or incorrect (−). The final score is the total number of correct items.
NEPSY Design Copying Subtest [44]	In this test, children use paper and pencil to copy two-dimensional geometric drawings of increasing complexity. The drawings are scored according to the established criteria, between 0 and 4 points for each of the 18 items (maximum score of 72). The test is stopped when the child incorrectly performs four consecutive items.
PDMS-2 Visuomotor Integration Subtests [45]	It consists of the tasks constructions with blocks (tower, train, bridge, wall, steps, pyramid); cutting with scissors imitating the horizontal line; threading beads; folding paper; copying (circle, cross, square); cutting paper (line, circle, square); lining with a string; putting small objects in a jar; drawing lines; connecting dots; coloring between the lines. Tasks are age-adjusted and placed in an increasing sequence of difficulty. The child starts the test on a specific item, according to his/her age, and continues in the sequence until he/she fails three consecutive ones. Each item is graded on a three-point evaluation scale: 0 = does not perform, 1 = minimum proficiency, 2 = optimal proficiency.
CDT Copy Design Task [48]	Instruct children to copy eight simple geometric designs. Children have two attempts at each drawing without applicator help. To each drawing is given a score of 1 if at least one attempt is correct, 2 if both attempts are correct, and 0 if both attempts are incorrect or not attempted. Item scores are summed and converted to a correct proportion of a possible score of 16.

Legend. CDT—Copy Design Task; IED III—the Brigance Inventory of Early Development III; LAP-D—Learning Accomplishment Profile-Diagnostic (Third Edition); NEPSY—NEuroPSYchological evaluation battery; PDMS-2—Peabody developmental motor scale (Second Edition); VMI—Test of Visual–Motor Integration.

Table 8 presents the specific characteristics of the tests that evaluated VMI according to the criteria.
表 8 显示了根据标准评估 VMI 的测试的具体特征。

Table 8. Characteristics of the tests used to evaluate FMC that were associated with mathematical skills in preschool education children [14] according to the formulated criteria.

Criteria Tests	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I
IED III Fine Motor Subscale of the Physical Development Domain	9	1 (execution error)	Qualitative	Easy access or acquisition	More than 10 min	Individual	0 7	Age-adjusted	4
VMI Visuomotor Integration Test	15	1 (execution error)	Quantitative	Easy access or acquisition	Less than 5 min	Individual and groups	2 7	Equal to all ages	4
LAP-D Writing Subscale	28	1 (execution error)	Quantitative	Easy access or acquisition	More than 10 min	Individual	2.5 6	Age-adjusted	4
NEPSY Subtest Design Copying	18	4 (from execution error)	Quantitative	Easy access or acquisition	Less than 10 min	Individual	3 16	Equal to all ages	5
PDMS-2 Visuomotor Integration Subtests	72	3 (from execution error)	Quantitative	Easy access or acquisition	More than 10 min	Individual	0 5.9	Age-adjusted	2
CDT Copy Design Task	8	1 (execution error)	Quantitative	Easy access or acquisition	Less than 5 min	Individual	all	Equal to all ages	2

Legend. A—number of tasks to be applied; B—number of criteria to score the test; C—type of scoring; D—materials; E—time of application; F—type of application; G—age range; H—test uniformity; I—number of mathematical skills associated; CDT—Copy Design Task; IED III—the Brigance Inventory of Early Development III; LAP-D—Learning Accomplishment Profile-Diagnostic (Third Edition); NEPSY—NEuroPSYchological evaluation battery; PDMS-2—Peabody developmental motor scale (Second Edition); VMI—Test of Visual–Motor Integration.

In this sense, considering for this purpose the characteristics of the tests that evaluated VMI, we tried to identify those that obeyed a larger number of the formulated criteria (Table 9).
从这个意义上说，考虑到为此目的评估 VMI 的测试的特征，我们试图确定那些遵守大量制定标准的测试（表 9）。

Table 9. Scores of the tests used to evaluate the VMI that were associated with mathematical skills in preschool education children according to the formulated criteria.

Formulated Criteria	Instruments and Respective Tests
	IED III	VMI	LAP-D	NEPSY	PDMS-2	CDT
	Fine Motor Subscale	Visuomotor Integration Test	Writing Subscale	Design Copying Subtest	Subtests of Visuomotor Integration	Copy Design Task
A—number of tasks to be applied	0	0	0	0	0	1
B—number of criteria to score	1	1	1	0	0	1
C—type of scoring	0	1	1	1	1	1
D—materials	1	1	1	1	1	1
E—application time	0	1	0	0	0	1
F—type of application	0	1	0	0	0	0
G—age range	1	1	1	1	0	1
H—test uniformity	0	1	0	0	0	1
I—mathematical abilities	0	0	0	1	0	0
Score	3	7	4	4	2	7

Legend. CDT—Copy Design Task; IED III—the Brigance Inventory of Early Development III; LAP-D—Learning Accomplishment Profile-Diagnostic (Third Edition); NEPSY—NEuroPSYchological evaluation battery; PDMS-2—Peabody developmental motor scale (Second Edition); VMI—Test of Visual–Motor Integration.

According to the data in Table 9, the highest scoring tests, and thus those that can most easily be used to evaluate VMI, were the Visuomotor Integration Test (VMI) [47] and the Copy Design Task (CDT) [48], both with 6 points.
根据表 9 中的数据，得分最高的测试，因此最容易用于评估 VMI 的测试是视觉运动整合测试 （VMI） [47] 和复制设计任务 （CDT） [48]，均为 6 分。

Once the tests were identified, it was necessary to select them.
一旦确定了测试，就有必要选择它们。

The tests identified with characteristics offering a greater possibility of their use by early kindergarten teachers to evaluate FMC of their students were the band 1: Manual Dexterity insert coins and “threading beads” tests of MABC-2 [41] and the NEPSY visuomotor accuracy subtest [44]. With regard to the NEPSY visuomotor grip subtest, given its characteristics, it can easily be used by kindergarten teachers to evaluate the FMC, since only one task needs to be evaluated and it is the same for all ages, the evaluation is quantitative, it is indicated for children aged between 3 and 12 years, it only requires the use of pencil and paper and the application time is reduced (less than 5 min) [56]. However, a limitation of this test is that it requires three criteria to score: execution time, execution errors and the number of times the pencil is lifted. This limitation requires more experience and training by the kindergarten teachers, as well as more time to classify the results obtained. Another limitation is the fact that this test is very similar to those used to evaluate VMI, since it requires pencil and paper to perform it [14], whose objective is to quickly draw lines within paths/tracks that progress from wide to narrow and from straight to curves [44].
被确定为幼儿园早期教师评估学生 FMC 的特征提供了更大可能性的测试是 MABC-2 的 1 级：手动灵巧插入硬币和“穿珠”测试 [41] 以及 NEPSY 视觉运动准确性子测试 [44]。关于 NEPSY 视觉运动握力子测试，鉴于其特性，幼儿园教师可以很容易地使用它来评估 FMC，因为只需要评估一项任务，并且所有年龄段都是相同的，评估是定量的，适用于 3 至 12 岁的儿童，它只需要使用铅笔和纸，并且应用时间减少（少于 5 分钟）[56].但是，此测试的局限性在于它需要三个标准来评分：执行时间、执行错误和举起铅笔的次数。这种限制需要幼儿园教师有更多的经验和培训，以及更多的时间来对获得的结果进行分类。另一个限制是该测试与用于评估 VMI 的测试非常相似，因为它需要铅笔和纸来执行 [14]，其目标是在路径/轨道内快速绘制从宽到窄、从直线到曲线的线条 [44]。

Regarding the band 1: Manual Dexterity, insert coins and threading beads tests of the MABC-2 [41], the characteristics are very similar to the visuomotor prehension NEPSY subtest [44], as they allow evaluating FMC in a short period of time (less than 5 min), the tests are applicable to children aged between 3 and 6 years and are the same regardless of age and the evaluation is quantitative. These tests, despite requiring more materials than the visuomotor accuracy NEPSY subtest, are easy to access and acquire. It should be noted that these tests only require one criterion to score (time in seconds), which facilitates the learning and training of kindergarten teachers to interpret the results. The characteristics of these tests are similar to others used to evaluate FMC since they require speed and manual dexterity based on observation of object-handling tasks with pincer-like movements [14].
关于 MABC-2 的 1 级：手动灵巧度、插入硬币和穿珠测试 [41]，其特性与视觉运动握力 NEPSY 子测试 [44] 非常相似，因为它们允许在短时间内（少于 5 分钟）评估 FMC，这些测试适用于 3 至 6 岁的儿童，无论年龄大小都是相同的，并且评估是定量的。这些测试尽管需要比视觉运动准确性 NEPSY 子测试更多的材料，但易于访问和获取。需要注意的是，这些测试只需要一个标准（以秒为单位的时间）进行评分，这有助于幼儿园教师的学习和培训来解释结果。这些测试的特点与用于评估FMC的其他测试相似，因为它们需要速度和手部灵活性，基于对钳状运动的物体处理任务的观察[14]。

In this sense, justifying the characteristics of the tests, the MABC-2 of band 1, threading beads and insert coins were the ones that best fitted the objective of the study and thus were the selected ones.
从这个意义上说，为了证明测试的特性，波段 1 的 MABC-2、穿线珠和插入硬币是最符合研究目标的，因此被选中。

The insert coins test evaluates the ability to insert coins into a box as quickly as possible using first the dominant hand and then the non-dominant hand, scoring the fastest (6 coins for children aged 3 and 4 years and 12 coins for children aged 5 and 6 years). The threading beads test evaluates the ability to thread cubes on a string, with a metal pointed tip, as quickly as possible (6 cubes for children aged 3 and 4 years and 12 cubes for children aged 5 and 6 years). Studies have shown high correlations between the threading beads test and insert coins test [57,58,59]. High correlations between tests indicate that they are measuring the same abilities; on the other hand, if the correlations are low, they would be measuring different abilities [60]. In this sense, instead of using the two tests of band 1 of the MABC-2, it is justified to use only one to evaluate the FMC since it allows the reduction of material resources, application time, training for application and children’s learning to perform it. Thus, considering the test criteria regarding material resources, the threading beads test, rather than the insert coins test, is the one that best fits the objectives of this study. This option is justified by the fact that the materials for its application are easier to acquire; all that is needed is a string with a pointed end and cubes. In addition, although with different procedures and materials for application, this test is also used by other instruments to evaluate the FMC associated with mathematical skills, namely by BEFMS [42] and PDMS-2 [45]. For the application of the insert coins test, although the materials are also easy to acquire and the test only requires one box with a slit and coins to insert in it, taking into account the possibility of applying the test to a considerable group of children (a preschool class), it will be more difficult to acquire a large number of boxes with a slit and coins than to acquire cords and cubes. Regarding the time criterion, the insert coins test is applied twice, once on the dominant hand and once on the non-dominant hand, and the threading beads test is applied only once. In this sense, the threading beads test requires less application time.
插入硬币测试评估首先使用惯用手，然后是非惯用手尽快将硬币放入盒子的能力，得分最快（3 岁和 4 岁儿童 6 枚硬币，5 岁和 6 岁儿童 12 枚硬币）。穿线珠测试评估尽快将立方体穿在带有金属尖头的绳子上的能力（3 岁和 4 岁儿童 6 个立方体，5 岁和 6 岁儿童 12 个立方体）。研究表明，穿线珠试验和插入硬币试验之间具有高度相关性[57,58,59]。测试之间的高度相关性表明它们正在衡量相同的能力;另一方面，如果相关性较低，他们将测量不同的能力 [60]。从这个意义上说，与其使用 MABC-1 的 2 项测试，不如只使用一项来评估 FMC，因为它可以减少材料资源、应用时间、应用培训和儿童学习执行它。因此，考虑到有关材料资源的测试标准，穿线珠测试，而不是插入硬币测试，是最符合本研究目标的测试。这种选择是合理的，因为其应用的材料更容易获得;所需要的只是一个带有尖头和立方体的字符串。此外，尽管应用程序和材料不同，但该测试也被其他工具用于评估与数学技能相关的FMC，即BEFMS [42]和PDMS-2 [45]。 对于插入硬币测试的应用，虽然材料也很容易获得，并且测试只需要一个带有狭缝和硬币的盒子插入其中，但考虑到将测试应用于相当多的儿童群体（学龄前班）的可能性，获得大量带有狭缝和硬币的盒子会比获得绳索和立方体更难。关于时间标准，插币测试应用两次，一次在惯用手上，一次在非惯用手上，穿线珠测试只应用一次。从这个意义上说，穿线珠测试需要更少的应用时间。

The major limitation observed in the tests used to evaluate the FMC associated with mathematical skills was the fact that none of them allow the application to the class group simultaneously. This feature not only demands a lot of time from the kindergarten teacher to apply the tests to all students individually but also the impossibility to neglect the work to be done with the others who are not being evaluated. Even with this limitation, it does not mean that these evaluations should not be performed; however, the tests that best fit the reality and objective in question should be considered [61]. Thus, there is an urgent need to adapt a test to evaluate the FMC with the possibility of being easily applied to the whole class simultaneously, in a short period of time, with few material resources, where the results are objective (quantitative) and easy to interpret and classify. Regarding the tests identified with characteristics that offer a greater possibility of being more easily used by kindergarten teachers to evaluate VMI, they were the Visuomotor Integration Test (VMI) [47] and the Copy Design Task (CDT) [48]. These tests have very similar characteristics: they use paper and pencil to draw geometric shapes of increasing complexity; reduced application time (less than 5 min); only one criterion for scoring (execution error); quantitative evaluation (number of shapes correctly copied); it is the same test regardless of age; it covers all preschool ages.
在用于评估与数学技能相关的 FMC 的测试中观察到的主要限制是，它们都不允许同时应用于类组。此功能不仅需要幼儿园老师花费大量时间将测试单独应用于所有学生，而且不可能忽视与未被评估的其他人一起完成的工作。即使有这个限制，也不意味着不应该进行这些评估;然而，应考虑最符合相关现实和目标的试验[61]。因此，迫切需要调整一种测试来评估 FMC，并有可能在短时间内以很少的材料资源轻松同时应用于整个类别，其中结果是客观的（定量的）并且易于解释和分类。关于被确定为幼儿园教师更容易使用来评估 VMI 的特征的测试，它们是视觉运动整合测试 （VMI） [47] 和复制设计任务 （CDT） [48]。这些测试具有非常相似的特点：它们使用纸和铅笔绘制越来越复杂的几何形状;减少应用时间（少于 5 分钟）;只有一个评分标准（执行错误）;定量评估（正确复制的形状数量）;无论年龄大小，都是相同的测试;它涵盖所有学龄前儿童。

One advantage of the CDT in relation to the VMI test is related to the number of geometric shapes to be copied, that is, the CDT only requires the copying of 8 figures and the VMI 15 figures. However, the VMI test is the only one that allows the application either individually or in groups of children [47]. This criterion is essential to substantially reduce application time, allowing the class to carry it out simultaneously and thus include all students in carrying out the same task. In this sense, this test may be the one that best fits not only the purpose of this study, but also the reality faced by kindergartens, since the VMI test does not require much training for its application, scoring and classification, it only requires paper and pencil to draw geometric shapes of increasing difficulty and can be administered to the whole class group in a short period of time [47].
CDT 相对于 VMI 测试的一个优势与要复制的几何形状数量有关，也就是说，CDT 只需要复制 8 个图形，而 VMI 只需要复制 15 个图形。然而，VMI 测试是唯一允许单独或以子组的形式申请的测试 [47]。这个标准对于大幅减少申请时间至关重要，允许全班同时执行，从而让所有学生都参与执行相同的任务。从这个意义上说，这个测试可能不仅最适合本研究的目的，而且最适合幼儿园面临的现实，因为 VMI 测试的应用、评分和分类不需要太多训练，它只需要纸和笔画出难度越来越大的几何形状，并且可以在短时间内对整个班级组进行管理 [47]。

Thus, considering the purpose of this study, the motor test identified as being more adjusted to preschool children’s reality to evaluate FMC is the threading beads test of band 1 of the MABC-2 [41] and to evaluate the VMI is the VMI test [47].
因此，考虑到本研究的目的，确定为更适应学龄前儿童现实以评估 FMC 的运动测试是 MABC-2 波段 1 的穿线珠测试 [41]，评估 VMI 的是 VMI 测试 [47]。

In this sense, there is an urgent need to adapt these tests in order to build an instrument to evaluate the FMS (FMC and VMI) associated with mathematical skills that has characteristics that easily allow an application by the kindergarten teacher simultaneously to their students, in a classroom context, in a short period of time, using few materials, with quantitative results and easy scoring and classification.
从这个意义上说，迫切需要调整这些测试，以构建一种工具来评估与数学技能相关的 FMS（FMC 和 VMI），该工具具有易于允许幼儿园教师在短时间内、使用很少的材料在课堂环境中同时向学生应用的特点， 具有定量结果和简单的评分和分类。

3.3. Adaptation and Preliminary Validation of the Motor Tests Selected to Evaluate the FMS Associated with Mathematical Skills
3.3. 选择用于评估与数学技能相关的 FMS 的运动测试的调整和初步验证

Another objective of this study was to present a preliminary proposal for the adaptation and validation of the selected motor tests to allow a simultaneous application by the kindergarten teacher to his/her students in a classroom context, in a short period of time and with few materials. The selected test best suited to the purpose of evaluating FMC was the MABC-2 threading beads test [41], and to evaluate VMI was the VMI test [47].
本研究的另一个目标是提出一个初步建议，用于调整和验证选定的运动测试，以允许幼儿园教师在课堂环境中、在短时间内和很少的材料同时应用于他/她的学生。最适合评估 FMC 目的的测试是 MABC-2 穿线珠测试 [41]，评估 VMI 的是 VMI 测试 [47]。

3.3.1. Preliminary Proposal for Adapting the Threading Beads Test
3.3.1. 采用 Threading Beads 测试的初步建议

The MABC-2 is one of the most used tests to identify children with developmental coordination disorder [62,63,64]. While some authors consider it a “gold standard” motor evaluation instrument [62,65], others emphasize the importance of finding more evidence before using it [64,65,66,67,68]. However, so far, there is no motor evaluation instrument referred by word-class criteria to diagnose children with motor disorder [69].
MABC-2 是识别发育性协调障碍儿童最常用的检测方法之一 [62,63,64]。虽然一些作者认为它是“黄金标准”的运动评估工具[62,65]，但另一些作者强调在使用前找到更多证据的重要性[64,65,66,67,68]。然而，到目前为止，还没有词级标准所指的运动评估工具可用于诊断儿童运动障碍[69]。

Considering the controversial literature on the adequacy of the MABC-2, the instruments should be suitable for the purpose of each study. Therefore, considering the purpose of this study, a preliminary proposal was made to adapt the threading beads test to allow not only an individual application, but, mainly, a simultaneous application to preschool students in the classroom by the kindergarten teacher.
考虑到关于 MABC-2 充分性的有争议的文献，这些工具应适合每项研究的目的。因此，考虑到本研究的目的，提出了一个初步建议，使穿线珠测试不仅允许单独应用，而且主要允许幼儿园老师在课堂上同时应用于学龄前儿童。

Thus, based on the original threading beads test [41], adaptations were made to the materials to be used and the procedures for its application (Table 10).
因此，在最初的穿线珠测试[41]的基础上，对要使用的材料及其应用程序进行了调整（表10）。

Table 10. Materials and procedures for the application of the original threading beads test [41] and preliminary adaptation.

Original Threading Beads Test
Materials	Procedures
₋ Test instructions *; ₋ table and chair *; ₋ blue table mat ***; ₋ stopwatch *; ₋ yellow cubes with a hole in the center (3- and 4-year-old children use 6 cubes and 5- and 6-year-old children use 12 cubes) **; ₋ rounded red string with a pointed metal tip **; ₋ conversion table for test values **.	₋ Thread cubes onto the string as quickly as possible **; ₋ the task is evaluated individually **; ₋ the child should be sitting comfortably and with both hands resting on the proximal edges of the blue table mat, which is laid out on the table **; ₋ the cubes are horizontally aligned on the distal part of the blue mat and the cord is placed in the center of the mat **; ₋ the children are informed about the test procedures, and the applicator makes a demonstration with a bead and allows the children to replicate *; ₋ at the signal from the applicator, the child picks up a cube and starts to string it one at a time until the end of the string *; ₋ timing starts when the first hand leaves the mat and is stopped when the last cube passes through the metal end of the string **; ₋ the child has two attempts, and the best time in seconds is recorded **; ₋ if a mistake is made on the first attempt, the instructions and demonstration may be repeated, and a further attempt is allowed. If a second mistake occurs, it is noted as no score **.
Proposal for Adapting the Threading Beads Test
Materials	Procedures
₋ Test instructions *; ₋ table and chair *; ₋ stopwatch *; ₋ wooden cubes with a hole in the center (3 and 4-year-old children use 6 cubes and 5- and 6-year-old children use 12 cubes) **; ₋ rounded string with a pointed plastic tip **; ₋ conversion table for test values **; ₋ score table +.	₋ The tables in the room should be arranged according to a normal school day +; ₋ start with 5- and 6-year-olds, followed by 4:6–4:11, 4:0–4:5, 3:6–3:11 and finally 3:0–3:5 +; ₋ thread as many cubes onto the string as possible in a pre-set time **; ₋ the task can be evaluated individually or in groups of children +; ₋ children should be seated comfortably and with both hands resting on the table **; ₋ the cubes are lined up horizontally in the center of the table and the string is placed in front and in the center of the cubes **; ₋ the children are informed about the test procedures, and the applicator demonstrates the test with a bead and allows the children to replicate *; ₋ at the applicator’s signal, the children take one cube and start to string one at a time until the end of the string *; ₋ timing starts when the first hand leaves the table and is stopped after the pre-set time **; ₋ the children have two attempts, and the highest number of beads inserted in the string in the two attempts is recorded **.

Legend. *—kept; **—modified; ***—removed; +—added.

The procedure regarding the arrangement of the tables in the classroom was added, as these should remain as per a normal school day so as not to influence or change the child’s routine in the classroom context.
增加了有关教室中桌子布置的程序，因为这些桌子应该按照正常的上学日保持，以免影响或改变孩子在课堂环境中的日常生活。

Regarding the materials to be used, the blue mat from the original version was removed since this material is used to support the cubes and the string, thus, in this way, it can be replaced by the table itself where the task is performed. In addition, the conditions of the string were modified, as it does not necessarily have to be red with a metallic pointed tip, it can perfectly well be of another color and with a pointed tip of another material (e.g., plastic). A new scoring table was also proposed, considering the number of beads strung. These adaptations make it possible to remove the blue mat and create a more affordable acquisition of the cord, since this material is commonly used in everyday footwear. The proposed scoring table allows a quick reading and classification of the results.
关于要使用的材料，原始版本中的蓝色垫子被删除了，因为这种材料用于支撑立方体和绳子，因此，通过这种方式，它可以被执行任务的桌子本身所取代。此外，琴弦的条件也被修改了，因为它不一定是红色的，带有金属尖头，它完全可以是另一种颜色，并且带有另一种材料（例如，塑料）的尖头。考虑到串珠的数量，还提出了一个新的评分表。这些调整使得去除蓝色垫子并创造更实惠的绳索收购成为可能，因为这种材料通常用于日常鞋类。建议的评分表允许快速读取和分类结果。

Although the original test requires a short application time, it was only designed to evaluate children individually [41], thus the time spent on the application will depend on the number of children to be evaluated per class. Furthermore, when the kindergarten teacher applies the test individually, he/she only focuses on the child being evaluated, neglecting the remaining children. Therefore, it was considered an added value to present a preliminary proposal to adapt this test so that it could be applied simultaneously to the whole class group, not only reducing the application time, but also allowing all children to perform the same task at the same time (inclusive).
虽然最初的测试需要较短的申请时间，但它只是为了单独评估儿童[41]，因此申请的时间将取决于每个班级要评估的儿童数量。此外，当幼儿园教师单独应用测试时，他/她只关注被评估的孩子，而忽略了其余的孩子。因此，提出一个初步建议来调整这个测试，以便它可以同时应用于整个班级组，不仅减少了申请时间，而且允许所有孩子同时执行相同的任务（包括在内），这被认为是一个附加值。

The most significant proposed adaptation to the original test was related to how to quantify the number of cubes strung on the string. The original test quantifies the time (in seconds) it takes for all of the cubes to be strung on the string. This procedure requires an individual evaluation, as the applicator should time it one at a time. Thus, to enable a simultaneous application to a group of children, it was necessary to adapt the test so that it could be performed within the same time interval by all children. Thus, the score will not be determined by the time it takes the child to string all the cubes, but by the number of cubes the child strings in a pre-set time interval. In this sense, the calculation to define the time to perform the test was obtained by taking into account the original cut-off points proposed by the authors for the maximum score in each age range (Table 11 and Table 12). Thus, the following times were proposed for carrying out the test: from 3:0 to 3:5 years old, 26 s; from 3:6 to 3:11 years old, 23 s; from 4:0 to 4:5 years old, 21 s, from 4:6 to 4:11 years old, 17 s; from 5 to 6:11 years old, 24 s. The application of the test should start with the oldest children (5 and 6 years old) and then follow the descending order of the age intervals (4:6–4:11; 4:0–4:5; 3:6–3:11; 3:0–3:5). This procedure, apart from saving on material resources for the test, allows the observation of the younger children, who consequently learn how to carry it out.
对原始测试提出的最重要的调整与如何量化串在绳子上的立方体数量有关。原始测试量化了将所有立方体串在绳子上所需的时间（以秒为单位）。此过程需要单独评估，因为施药者应一次进行一次一次评估。因此，为了能够同时应用于一组儿童，有必要调整测试，以便所有儿童都可以在相同的时间间隔内进行测试。因此，分数不是由子对象串住所有多维数据集所花费的时间决定的，而是由子对象在预设的时间间隔内串起的多维数据集的数量决定的。从这个意义上说，定义执行测试时间的计算是通过考虑作者为每个年龄段的最高分提出的原始分界点而获得的（表 11 和 表 12）。因此，提出了以下时间进行测试：从 3：0 到 3：5 岁，26 秒;从 3：6 到 3：11 岁，23 秒;从 4：0 到 4：5 岁，21 秒，从 4：6 到 4：11 岁，17 秒;从 5 岁到 6：11 岁，24 秒。测试的应用应从最大的儿童（5 岁和 6 岁）开始，然后按照年龄间隔的降序（4：6–4：11、4：0–4：5、3：6–3：11、3：0–3：5）。该程序除了节省测试的物质资源外，还可以观察年幼的孩子，从而学习如何进行检查。

Table 11. Conversion of the original scores of the threading beads test to the adapted test proposed for 3- and 4-year-old children.

Score	3:0 to 3:5		3:5 to 3:11		4:0 to 4:5		4:6 to 4:11
	Original	Conversion	Original	Conversion	Original	Conversion	Original	Conversion
19
18
17
16	<26	6 (6)
15	27–32	5.77 (5)	<23	6 (6)	<21	6 (6)	<17	6 (6)
14	33–35	4.72 (4)	24–28	5.75 (5)	22–24	5.73 (5)	18–21	5.67 (5)
13	36–40	4.33 (4)	29–35	4.76 (4)	25–26	5.04 (5)	22–23	4.64 (4)
12	41–47	3.8 (3)	36–38	3.83 (3)	27–29	4.67 (4)	24–25	4.25 (4)
11	48–52	3.25 (3)	39–40	3.54 (3)	30–31	4.2 (4)	26–27	3.92 (3)
10	53–56	2.94 (2)	41–47	3.36 (3)	32–36	3.94 (3)	28–32	3.63 (3)
9	57–65	2.73 (2)	48–56	2.97 (2)	37–39	3.41 (3)	33–36	3.1 (3)
8	66–70	2.36 (2)	57–65	2.42 (2)	40–48	3.15 (3)	37–39	2.76 (2)
7	71–78	2.19 (2)	66–73	2.1 (2)	49–55	2.57 (2)	40–41	2.55 (2)
6	79–83	1.97 (1)	74–78	186 (1)	56–63	2.25 (2)	42–43	2.32 (2)
5	84–87	1.85 (1)	79–81	1.75 (1)	64–77	1.97 (1)	44–46	2.32 (2)
4	88–96	1.72 (1)	82–96	1.68 (1)	78–79	1.62 (1)	47–62	2.17 (2)
3					80–86	1.58 (1)	63	1.62 (1)
2
1	+97	1.61 (1)	+97	1.42 (1)	+87	1.45 (1)	64+	1.59 (1)

Legend. Conversion—(number of cubes to be strung × minimum time taken to complete the test)/lower value of the time interval in each original score.

Table 12. Conversion of the original threading beads test scores to the proposed adapted test for 5- and 6-year-old children.

Score	5:0 to 5:11		6:0 to 6:11
	Original	Conversion	Original	Conversion
19
18
17	<24	12 (12)	<24	12 (12)
16	25–29	11.51 (11)	25–28	11.52 (11)
15	30–35	9.6 (9)	29–31	9.93 (9)
14	36–38	8 (8)	32–33	9 (9)
13	39–40	7.38 (7)	34–35	8.47 (8)
12	41–43	7.02 (7)	36–37	8 (8)
11	44–47	6.54 (6)	38–42	7.57 (7)
10	48–49	6 (6)	43–45	6.69 (6)
9	50–53	5.75 (5)	46–47	6.26 (6)
8	54–55	5.33 (5)	48–49	6 (6)
7	56–60	5.14 (5)	50–54	5.76 (5)
6	61–66	4.72 (4)	55–58	5.23 (5)
5	61–66	4.72 (4)	59–63	4.88 (4)
4	67–96	4.29 (4)	64	4.5 (4)
3	97–121	2.97 (2)	65–73	4.43 (4)
2	122	2.36 (2)	74	3.89 (3)
1	122+	−de 2.36 (2)	74+	−de 3.89 (3)

Legend. Conversion—(number of cubes to be strung × time to perform the test)/lower value of the time interval of each original score.

To obtain the scores in each age range, the total number of cubes to be strung was multiplied by the minimum time proposed for carrying out the test and the resulting value was divided by the shortest time that the child took to string the cubes to each of the cut-off points proposed by the authors [41]. The time was rounded up to the whole number obtained and equaled to the number of beads. Although, it was considered not to round down to the nearest whole number since the time would not be enough to fulfil the complete threading of the bead. Figure 3 shows the formula used to convert the original scores, taking into account the time in seconds it takes the children to string the cubes (6 or 12), to the number of cubes the child should string in the corresponding time interval.
为了获得每个年龄段的分数，将要串起来的立方体总数乘以建议的进行测试的最短时间，然后将得到的值除以儿童将立方体串到作者提出的每个截止点所花费的最短时间 [41]。时间四舍五入到得到的整数，等于珠子的数量。虽然，人们认为不要四舍五入到最接近的整数，因为时间不足以满足珠子的完全穿线。图 3 显示了用于将原始分数转换的公式，其中考虑了子级将立方体串成 6 或 12 个立方体所需的时间（以秒为单位），转换为子级在相应时间间隔内应串成的立方体数量。

Figure 3. Formula used to convert original scores to proposals.
图 3. 用于将原始分数转换为提案的公式。

For example, to apply the formula, a 5-year-old child who takes between 36 and 38 s to line up all 12 cubes will score 14 points. When applying the formula, to obtain this score, the child will need to line up 8 cubes (12 × 24/36 = 8).
例如，应用该公式，一个 5 岁的孩子需要 36 到 38 秒的时间将所有 12 个立方体排成一排，将获得 14 分。应用公式时，要获得此分数，孩子需要将 8 个立方体排成一排（12 × 24/36 = 8）。

Thus, the final score to be attributed will correspond to the number of cubes strung on the string in a stipulated time for each age. Table 11 and Table 12 show the conversion of the original scores of the threading beads test to the proposed adapted test taking into account the age of the child.
因此，要归因的最终分数将对应于每个年龄在规定时间内串在字符串上的立方体数量。表 11 和 表 12 显示了考虑到儿童年龄，穿线珠测试的原始分数转换为拟议的适应测试。

According to the MABC-2 authors [41], children at risk of motor disorder are those whose scores on the tasks evaluated are ≤7. Considering a score ≤7 as the cut-off point [41], which suggests that the child may have disorders in the FMC, then the score of new test suggests that children aged 3:0 to 4:11 years should string at least 2 cubes, with the exception of children aged 4:0 to 4:5 years, who should string 3 cubes, children aged 5:0 to 5:11 years, who should string at least 5 cubes and children aged 6:0 to 6:11 years, who should string at least 6 cubes.
根据 MABC-2 作者 [41] 的说法，有运动障碍风险的儿童是指在评估任务上的得分为 ≤7 的儿童。以 ≤7 分为分界点 [41]，表明儿童可能患有 FMC 疾病，那么新测试的分数表明 3：0 至 4：11 岁的儿童应至少串 2 个立方体，但 4：0 至 4：5 岁的儿童应串 3 个立方体，5：0 至 5：11 岁的儿童除外， 谁应该串至少 5 个立方体，6：0 至 6：11 岁的儿童应该至少串 6 个立方体。

Since the original score associated with the number of cubes strung in the adapted test for the child to be classified without motor disorder does not correspond to the same value for each age range, varying between 8 points (4:6 to 4:11 years) and 10 points (3:0 to 3:5 years; 4:0 to 4:5 years; 6 years), it was suggested to assign an equitable classification taking into account the original score on a scale from 0 to 4. Thus, the value 2 will correspond to the intermediate classification and suggests that the child is not at risk of showing a disorder in the FMC, values below 2 mean disorder (1 = moderate and 0 = severe) and values above 2 mean that the FMC is good or very good (3 = good; 4 = very good). In this sense, and according to the original scores, scores of 0 correspond to classification 0, between 2 and 7 corresponds to classification 1, between 8 and 10 to classification 2, between 11 and 13 to classification 3 and above 13 to classification 4 (Table 13). Table 14 presents the methods to apply the original VMI test [47] and the new proposed adapted test.
由于与要归类为无运动障碍的儿童的适应测试中串起的立方体数量相关的原始分数与每个年龄范围的相同值不对应，在 8 分（4：6 至 4：11 岁）和 10 分（3：0 至 3：5 岁;4：0 至 4：5 岁;6 岁）之间变化， 建议分配一个公平的分类，同时考虑到 0 到 4 分的原始分数。因此，值 2 对应于中间分类，表明儿童没有在 FMC 中表现出疾病的风险，低于 2 的值表示疾病（1 = 中度，0 = 严重），值高于 2 意味着 FMC 良好或非常好（3 = 良好;4 = 非常好）。从这个意义上说，根据原始分数，0 分对应于分类 0,2 到 7 之间对应于分类 1,8 到 10 之间对应分类 2,11 到 13 之间对应分类 3,13 以上对应分类 4（表 13）。表 14 列出了应用原始 VMI 测试 [47] 和新提出的改编测试的方法。

Table 13. Proposal of the number of cubes strung, and respective score, for the adapted threading beads test, taking into account the execution time for the original cut-off points and proposal of a classification associated with the number of points obtained.

Ages			Number of Cubes Strung in the Adapted Test
		0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Original score	3:0 to 3:5	0	6	10	12	14	15	16
	3:6 to 3:11	0	6	9	12	13	14	15
	4:0 to 4:5	0	5	7	10	12	14	15
	4:6 to 4:11	0	3	8	11	13	14	15
	5 years	0	0	3	3	5	9	11	13	14	15	15	16	17
	6 years	0	0	0	2	5	7	10	11	13	15	15	16	17
Proposed classification	3:0 to 3:5	0	1	2	3	4
	3:6 to 3:11	0	1	2	3		4
	4:0 to 4:5	0	1		2	3	4
	4:6 to 4:11	0	1	2	3		4
	5 years	0		1			2	3		4
	6 years	0			1			2	3		4

Legend. Rating—0 = severe; 1 = moderate; 2 = medium; 3 = good; 4 = very good.

Table 14. Materials and procedures for the application of the original VMI test [47] and proposed adapted test.

Original VMI Test—Administration to Groups
Materials	Procedures
₋ Test instructions *; ₋ soft pencil (No.2) or pen *; ₋ table and chair *; ₋ test booklets **; ₋ natural scores and standard scores *.	₋ Distribute the test booklets and say: “Do not open the booklets until I ask you to”. “Place them with the hand facing upwards” **; ₋ check that children are comfortably seated and have the booklets centered. The applicator should demonstrate *; ₋ while doing the demonstration, he/she should say: “Open the booklet on page 3, page 2 has only blank squares like this”. “Page 3 has shapes in the top squares”. They should copy each shape in the space below. The proctor should demonstrate on the board how to copy the shapes, but never use a shape from the test **; ₋ tell them to copy the shapes in order, starting with number 4; ₋ tell them that some shapes are very easy, and some are very difficult even for an adult *; ₋ tell them that they have to copy all the shapes and cannot skip any of them *; ₋ tell them that they must do their best, both for the easy and the difficult shapes *; ₋ remind them that they only have one attempt at each shape and that they cannot erase them *; ₋ the test can end when the applicator feels that all the children have finished it. Usually, 10 min is sufficient. However, if any child has not finished, the examiner should allow the child to finish the test.
Adapted VMI Test Proposal—Administration to the Class
Materials	Procedures
₋ Test instructions *; ₋ soft pencil (No.2) or pen *; ₋ table and chair *; ₋ examination paper **; ₋ natural scores and standard scores *. ₋ conversion table for the number of correctly copied shapes for the performance profile +.	₋ The tables in the room should be arranged as on a normal school day +; ₋ distribute the test sheet and say: “Do not open the sheet until I ask you to”. “Place it horizontally on the table with the arrows facing upwards” **; ₋ check that the children are comfortably seated with the paper centered. The applicator should demonstrate *; ₋ while doing the demonstration, say: “Open the sheet of paper, it has shapes in the squares at the top. You should copy each shape into the space below in order—from left to right and from top to bottom”. The applicator should demonstrate on the blackboard how to copy the shapes, but never use a shape from the test. They should make a complete replica of the test paper on the board to demonstrate **; ₋ they should tell them to copy the shapes in order, starting with number one, always keeping the arrows pointing upwards **: ₋ inform that there are also shapes on the back of the sheet to copy, and show the students +; ₋ you should inform them that some shapes are very easy and some are very difficult even for an adult *; ₋ inform them that they have to copy them all and not skip any *; ₋ inform them that they have to do their best, both for the easy and the difficult shapes *; ₋ remind them that they only have one attempt at each shape, and that they cannot erase it *; ₋ the test can end when the applicator feels that all the children have finished. Usually, 10 min is sufficient. However, if any child has not finished, the applicator should allow the child to finish the test *.

Legend. *—kept; **—modified; +—added.

Having justified the advantages of the proposal in adapting the threading beads test, to be applied simultaneously to groups of preschool children, it was necessary to validate it and associate its result with mathematical performance.
在证明了该提案在调整穿线珠测试以同时应用于学龄前儿童群体方面的优势之后，有必要对其进行验证并将其结果与数学表现联系起来。

3.3.2. Preliminary Proposal for Adaptation of the Visuomotor Integration Test
3.3.2. 适应视觉运动整合测试的初步建议

The VMI test consists of the visuomotor integration test and two additional tests, the visual perception and the motor coordination tests [47].
VMI 测试包括视觉运动整合测试和两项附加测试，即视觉感知和运动协调测试 [47]。

The purpose of this study was to propose an adaptation only of the VMI test. According to the manual, the VMI test can be applied to small groups as well as individually. Generally, preschool children should be evaluated individually, however, a whole class may be evaluated if supervised by two adults [47].
本研究的目的是仅提出对 VMI 测试的改编。根据手册，VMI 测试可以应用于小组，也可以单独进行。一般来说，学龄前儿童应该单独评估，但是，如果由两名成人监督，可以评估整个班级[47]。

As the aim of this study was to propose an adaptation of the VMI test for a simultaneous application to the class, the proposal was made only in terms of the materials and procedures of the test for application to groups. For this purpose, its short version was used, as this is the appropriate version for children attending preschool education, aged between 3 and 7 years [47]. Therefore, the aim of this test is to copy 15 geometric shapes as accurately as possible, in which the evaluation begins with copying a vertical line, a horizontal line and a circle. As the test progresses, the shapes become increasingly difficult to copy. The application of the test should follow the respective order of copying the shapes, otherwise the final result will be affected [47].
由于本研究的目的是提出对 VMI 测试的改编以同时应用于该类，因此该建议仅就适用于小组的测试的材料和程序提出。为此，使用了其简短版本，因为这是适合接受学前教育、3 至 7 岁儿童的版本 [47]。因此，本测试的目的是尽可能准确地复制 15 个几何形状，其中评估从复制一条垂直线、一条水平线和一个圆开始。随着测试的进行，形状变得越来越难以复制。测试的应用应遵循复制形状的相应顺序，否则会影响最终结果 [47]。

Considering the original VMI test regarding the materials and procedures for its application [47], this preliminary adaptation proposal aimed at reducing the amount of materials to be used and allowing a simultaneous application to the class group in a classroom context by only one adult (kindergarten teacher) (Table 14).
考虑到最初的 VMI 测试关于其应用材料和程序 [47]，这个初步的适应提案旨在减少要使用的材料数量，并允许只有一个成年人（幼儿园教师）在课堂环境中同时应用于班级（表 14）。

As for the threading beads test, the procedure related to the arrangement of the classroom tables was added, since they should be kept according to a normal day so as not to influence or change the routine of the children in the classroom context.
至于穿线珠测试，增加了与教室桌子布置相关的程序，因为它们应该按照正常的一天进行，以免影响或改变孩子们在课堂上的日常生活。

By observing Table 14, when analyzing the materials for application, classification and scoring of the test, these were kept according to the originals. However, it was considered necessary to create a table to convert the number of correctly copied shapes per age range to the “Average” performance profile. This table will allow the applicator (kindergarten teacher) to quickly classify the child’s performance profile as being above, equal to or below the “Average” performance profile.
通过观察表 14，在分析申请、分类和评分的材料时，这些材料都根据原始材料保留。但是，我们认为有必要创建一个表，以将每个年龄范围正确复制的形状数量转换为“平均”性能配置文件。此表格将允许施药者（幼儿园教师）快速将孩子的表现概况分类为高于、等于或低于“平均”表现概况。

When analyzing the materials for which the test has undergone changes, these are mainly justified by the change in the test booklets. The original proof given to the children to copy the shapes consists of seven sheets. The first sheet presents procedures for performing the test, the second sheet shows the 3 shapes for 2-year-old children to imitate and the following 5 sheets present the 15 shapes for the children to copy, 3 shapes per sheet [47]. This number of sheets when multiplied by the number of students per class and the number of times to administer the test, is probably a significant amount of resources (sheets). It was for this purpose, to save natural material resources, that this change is justified. Thus, it was proposed in the adapted test to use a single A4 sheet folded in half lengthwise to form four pages. The first one presents some procedures for taking the test, and pages 2, 3 and 4 present the 15 pictures to copy (5 pictures per page). To make this change possible, the squares in the original test of the shapes and the respective spaces to copy are 7.5 cm square, whereas in the adapted test the squares are only 5 cm square.
在分析测试发生更改的材料时，这些主要由测试手册中的更改来证明。给孩子们复制形状的原始校样由七张纸组成。第一张表格介绍了进行测试的程序，第二张表格显示了 2 岁儿童可以模仿的 3 个形状，接下来的 5 张表格展示了 15 个形状供儿童模仿，每张表格 3 个形状 [47]。这个表格数量乘以每个班级的学生人数和管理考试的次数，可能是大量的资源（表格）。正是出于这个目的，为了节省自然物质资源，这种改变是合理的。因此，在改编的测试中建议使用一张纵向对折的 A4 纸形成四页。第一个介绍了参加考试的一些程序，第 2、3 和 4 页展示了要复制的 15 张图片（每页 5 张图片）。为了实现这种变化，在形状的原始测试中，要复制的相应空间的正方形为 7.5 厘米见方，而在改编测试中，正方形仅为 5 厘米见方。

The VMI test can be applied and scored by any adult who is totally familiar with the materials and procedures and who has had practice supervised by an experienced applicator, since the test requires experience to interpret the results [47].
VMI 测试可以由任何完全熟悉材料和程序的成年人应用和评分，并且有经验丰富的涂抹者监督的实践，因为该测试需要经验来解释结果[47]。

Younger children tend to develop very quickly, which is why the VMI test scoring norms are assigned at 2 month intervals. Shapes (carriers) can be used to compare with those copied by children, however, experienced classifiers rarely need these carriers to rate the shape held by the child [47].
年幼的孩子往往发展得非常快，这就是为什么 VMI 测试评分标准每隔 2 个月分配一次。形状（载体）可用于与儿童复制的形状进行比较，但是，有经验的分类器很少需要这些载体来评价儿童持有的形状[47]。

The first attempt made by the child should always be graded. If the applicator does not realize which shape was made first, he/she should compare it with the size of the following shapes and try to identify the one that was made first. The scoring should end after three consecutive failed copied shapes. The classification and scoring criteria are those proposed by the authors (Table 15) [47].
孩子所做的第一次尝试应始终进行评分。如果涂抹者没有意识到哪个形状是先制作的，他/她应该将其与以下形状的大小进行比较，并尝试识别最先制作的形状。评分应在连续三个复制形状失败后结束。分类和评分标准是作者提出的标准（表 15）[47]。

Table 15. Summary of classification criteria in the execution of the 15 forms (adapted from Beery & Beery [47]).

N°	Shape	Criterion	With Score	No Score
1		More than half of the line(s) within 30° of vertical.
2		More than half of the line(s) within 30° of horizontal.
3		Any curve with a ratio of no more than 2 to 1 between its height and width.
4		Two intersecting lines; all four “legs” at least 0.62 cm long (not including extensions); at least half of each line within 20° of the right angle.
5		A “single” line (extensions are accepted); at least half of the line within 110°–160°; no abrupt change of direction.
6		Four clearly defined sides (corners need not be angled).
7		Four clearly defined sides (corners need not be angled). A “single” line (extensions are accepted); at least half of the line within 20°–70°; no abrupt change of direction.
8		Two intersecting lines; angles formed by the lines between 20°–70° and 110°–160°; the longest of the four “legs” is not more than twice as long as the shortest (not including extensions).
9		Three clearly defined sides; one corner higher than the others.
10		No more than 0.16 cm spacing or overlapping shapes; no big distortion in the open circle or square; height of circle and square within a 2 to 1 ratio; the bisector of the circle passing through the corner of the square should project into the square.
11		Three intersecting lines; the intersection gap is no more than 0.31 cm high; more than half of the horizontal line within 15° acceptable; more than half of both diagonals more than 10° from vertical.
12		No tip inversion or “floating” tips; sharp points on arrows; no directional confusion; the length of the four “legs” is no more than two times the length of the shortest leg.
13		Three overlapping circles showing seven openings (the triangular opening in the center must be shown); one circle clearly below the others (the position must be checked by connecting the center points of the circles to form a triangle. The lower side of the triangle must be 20° or more above the horizontal).
14		Six circles; baseline and at least one other correct side (a dashed line must touch at least the edge of each circle); baseline within 10° of horizontal; spacing between circles on the same side should be no more than 2 to 1.
15		Square with four corners and a circle; opposite corners within 10° of vertical and horizontal; the square “touches” the circle with the closed corner; no more than 0.16 cm separation or overlap of shapes; corner contact in the middle third of the circle; height of circle and square in a ratio no greater than 2 to 1.

The shapes to be copied are as follows (Table 16): 1—vertical line; 2—horizontal line; 3—circle; 4—horizontal cross; 5—oblique line to the right; 6—square; 7—oblique line to the left; 8—oblique cross; 9—triangle; 10—open square and circle; 11—three-line cross; 12—directional arrows; 13—rings in two dimensions; 14—six-circle triangle; 15—inclined circle and square.
要复制的形状如下（表 16）：1 — 垂直线;2 - 水平线;3 - 圆;4—水平十字;5 - 向右的斜线;6 - 正方形;7 - 向左的斜线;8—斜十字;9—三角形;10—空方圆;11—三线十字;12—方向箭头;13—二维环;14—六圆三角形;15 - 倾斜的圆形和方形。

Table 16. Natural scores and standard scores (adapted from Beery & Beery [47]).

	Natural Scores (Number of Shapes Copied Correctly)
Age	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
3-0|3-1	73	79	83	90	97	109	120	134	142	153	155
3-2|3-3	71	76	81	88	94	106	116	129	137	147	155
3-4|3-5	69	74	79	86	92	103	112	124	133	142	152	155
3-6|3-7	67	72	77	84	90	100	109	120	128	137	146	155
3-8|3-9	65	70	75	82	88	97	106	116	123	132	140	149	155
3-10|3-11	63	68	73	80	86	94	102	111	119	127	135	142	150	155
4-0|4-1	62	66	72	78	84	92	99	107	114	122	129	136	144	151	155
4-2|4-3	60	63	70	76	81	89	95	102	109	116	123	130	137	143	151
4-4|4-5	57	61	67	73	79	85	90	96	103	110	116	121	128	133	140
4-6|4-7	56	59	66	72	77	83	88	93	100	106	112	117	123	128	135
4-8|4-9	54	57	64	70	75	80	85	90	97	103	109	114	120	125	132
4-10|4-11	52	55	61	67	72	78	83	88	94	100	106	111	117	122	129
5-0|5-1	51	53	59	65	70	75	80	85	92	97	103	108	114	120	126
5-2|5-3	49	51	57	62	67	72	77	82	89	94	99	105	111	117	122
5-4|5-5	46	48	54	59	64	69	74	79	85	90	95	101	107	113	118
5-6|5-7	45	47	52	57	62	67	72	77	83	88	93	99	105	111	116
5-8|5-9		45	50	55	60	65	70	75	81	86	91	97	103	109	114
5-10|5-11		45	48	53	58	63	68	73	79	84	89	95	101	106	111
6-0|6-1		45	46	51	56	62	66	71	77	82	87	93	99	104	109
6-2|6-3			45	49	54	60	63	69	75	79	85	90	96	102	106
6-4|6-5			45	47	52	58	61	67	73	77	83	88	94	99	104
6-6|6-7				45	50	56	59	65	71	75	81	86	92	97	101
6-8|6-9				45	49	55	59	64	70	74	80	85	90	95	100
6-10|6-11				45	49	54	58	63	68	73	78	83	89	94	98

Each correctly copied shape is awarded 1 point. The sum of the points corresponds to the natural score of the test. However, it is recommended that natural scores be converted into standard scores adjusted to each age interval [47]. In this sense, Table 16 shows the conversion of natural scores into standard scores for each age range from 3 to 6 years and 11 months, at intervals of 2 months. Based on the standard scores, a performance profile of the VMI test is assigned (Table 17).
每个正确复制的形状都会获得 1 分。分数之和对应于测试的自然分数。然而，建议将自然评分转换为根据每个年龄区间调整的标准评分[47]。从这个意义上说，表 16 显示了 3 至 6 岁零 11 个月每个年龄段的自然分数转换为标准分数，间隔 2 个月。根据标准分数，分配 VMI 测试的性能概况（表 17）。

Table 17. Score and respective performance profile of the VMI test (adapted from Beery & Beery [47]).

Standard Score	Performance
133–160	Very high
118–132	High
83–117	Medium
68–82	Low
40–67	Very low

An above average test score will indicate outstanding individual performance, compared to the normative population, and a below average score will indicate weakness [47]. For an easier and faster interpretation by the kindergarten teacher regarding the result obtained from the child about the number of shapes copied correctly, and taking into account the age range, the number of copies was associated with the average performance profile, taking into account the lower value of the cut-off points, which is 83 points (Table 18).
与正常人群相比，高于平均水平的测试分数将表明个体表现突出，低于平均分数将表明较弱 [47]。为了让幼儿园老师更轻松、更快速地解释从孩子那里获得的关于正确复制的形状数量的结果，并考虑到年龄范围，副本的数量与平均表现概况相关联，同时考虑到截止点的较低值，即 83 分（表 18）。

Table 18. Proposed conversion of the number of correctly copied shapes to the average performance profile as a function of the child’s age.

Age Range	3-0	3-2	3-8	4-2	4-8	5-0	5-2	5-8	6-0	6-8
	3-1	3-7	4-1	4-7	4-11	5-1	5-7	5-11	6-7	6-11
Number of shapes correctly copied	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12

3.4. Preliminary Validation of the Motor Tests Proposed to Simultaneously Evaluate the FMS in the Classroom Context
3.4. 初步验证提议在课堂环境中同时评估 FMS 的运动测试

After identification, selection and consequent preliminary adaptation of the motor tests, to evaluate the FMS, it was necessary to validate them. The degree of reliability of the tests was evaluated when applied at two moments simultaneously to the class group and individually, and a predictive criterion validation was also carried out to analyze the association between the adapted motor tests and mathematical abilities.
在确定、选择和随后对电机测试进行初步调整后，为了评估 FMS，有必要对其进行验证。当在两个时刻同时应用于班级组和单独应用于班级时，评估了测试的可靠性程度，并且还进行了预测标准验证以分析适应的运动测试与数学能力之间的关联。

3.4.1. Reliability Evaluation
3.4.1. 可靠性评估

To evaluate the degree of reliability of the adapted motor tests, the intra-observer test-retest method was used, including the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), with the objective of verifying its temporal stability. This method made it possible to analyze the consistency or homogeneity of the results of the same sample at two different points in time [70]. In order to measure the degree of reliability and considering that an interval of 10 to 14 days between test and retest [51] was adequate, the tests were applied to the class simultaneously, during the morning period, on the 16th of March 2023 (test) and repeated (retest) 11 days later. In turn, the individual application of the tests was performed during the morning period on the 29th of March 2023 (13 days after the test).
为了评估适应的运动测试的可靠性，使用了观察者内重测方法，包括类内相关系数 （ICC），目的是验证其时间稳定性。这种方法可以分析同一样品在两个不同时间点的结果的一致性或均匀性[70]。为了衡量可靠性的程度，并考虑到测试和复测之间 10 到 14 天的间隔 [51] 就足够了，这些测试在 2023 年 3 月 16 日上午（测试）和 11 天后重复（重测）同时应用于班级。反过来，测试的单独应用是在 2023 年 3 月 29 日上午（测试后 13 天）进行的。

Table 19 presents the ICC results, by the test-retest method, as well as their lower and higher values and respective classification.
表 19 通过重测方法列出了 ICC 结果，以及它们的下限和上限以及各自的分类。

Table 19. Results of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), by the test-retest method, obtained from the application of the adapted threading beads test and the adapted VMI test between the evaluation of the class group as well as individually.

Test-Retest	ICC	ICC Lower Limit	ICC Upper Limit	ICC Classification
Threading beads adapted: class group	0.957	0.934	0.972	Excellent
Threading beads adapted: individual	0.924	0.838	0.964	Excellent
VMI test adapted: class group	0.958	0.935	0.973	Excellent
VMI test adapted: individual	0.961	0.917	0.982	Excellent

Legend. ICC—intraclass correlation coefficient.

ICC values close to 1 mean that the measurements are very similar or homogeneous. For the classification of the ICC values, the Koo and Li [53] criteria were used, in which values less than 0.50 are considered bad, between 0.50 and 0.75 are moderate, between 0.75 and 0.90 are good and greater than 0.90 are indicative of excellent reliability. According to data in Table 19, the ICC values were all greater than 0.90, which means an excellent degree of reliability of the adapted threading teads test in relation to the test-retest, when the class group was evaluated simultaneously (ICC = 0.957) and individually (ICC = 0.924). Likewise, the result was similar for the adapted VMI test, as the degree of reliability was also excellent when the class group was evaluated simultaneously (ICC = 0.958) and individually (ICC = 0.961).
ICC 值接近 1 表示测量值非常相似或均匀。对于ICC值的分类，使用了Koo和Li [53]标准，其中小于0.50的值被认为是差的，0.50到0.75之间的值是中等的，0.75到0.90之间的值是好的，大于0.90表示极好的可靠性。根据表 19 中的数据，ICC 值均大于 0.90，这意味着当同时评估 （ICC = 0.957） 和单独评估类别组 （ICC = 0.924） 时，适应的螺纹加工测试相对于重测具有极高的可靠性。同样，适应性 VMI 测试的结果也相似，因为当同时 （ICC = 0.958） 和单独评估 （ICC = 0.961） 组时，可靠性程度也非常出色。

This result indicates that the tests adapted to evaluate the FMS, namely the threading beads test and the VMI test, showed an excellent degree of reliability and may therefore be administered simultaneously to the class group, since their results were stable between all the evaluations, group and individual.
该结果表明，适用于评估 FMS 的测试，即穿线珠测试和 VMI 测试，显示出极高的可靠性，因此可以同时对班级组进行，因为它们的结果在所有评估之间是稳定的，小组和个人。

3.4.2. Predictive Criterion Validation
3.4.2. 预测准则验证

The predictive criterion validation aimed to analyze the relationship between the adapted motor tests, threading beads test and VMI test with the WPPSI-R arithmetic test. For this purpose, the scores and classifications obtained individually and the respective sum of the scores and classifications of the adapted motor tests were associated with the scores and classifications of the arithmetic test. The scores and classifications used in the association were the original ones for each test/proof, except for the classification of the threading beads test, which was adapted considering the original test score (Table 14). In this sense, the ratings assigned to all tests ranged from 0 to 4 (threading beads: 0 = severe; 1 = moderate; 2 = average; 3 = good; 4 = very good. VMI test: 0 = very low; 1 = low; 2 = medium; 3 = high; 4 = very high. WPPSI-R arithmetic test: 0 = very low; 1 = low; 2 = medium; 3 = high; 4 = very high).
预测标准验证旨在分析适应性电机测试、穿线珠测试和 VMI 测试与 WPPSI-R 算术测试之间的关系。为此，单独获得的分数和分类以及改编运动测试的分数和分类的相应总和与算术测试的分数和分类相关联。协会中使用的分数和分类是每个测试/证明的原始分数和分类，但穿线珠测试的分类除外，该分类是根据原始测试分数进行调整的（表 14）。从这个意义上说，分配给所有测试的评级范围从 0 到 4（穿线珠：0 = 严重;1 = 中等;2 = 一般;3 = 良好;4 = 非常好。VMI 测试：0 = 非常低;1 = 低;2 = 中等;3 = 高;4 = 非常高。WPPSI-R 算术检验：0 = 非常低;1 = 低;2 = 中等;3 = 高;4 = 非常高）。

Table 20 presents the results of the associations, from simple linear regression, between the scores and the classifications of the motor and mathematics tests, and Table 21 shows the respective standardized regression coefficients (β) and non-standardized regression coefficients (Beta).
表 20 显示了运动和数学测试的分数和分类之间的简单线性回归之间的关联结果，表 21 显示了各自的标准化回归系数 （β） 和非标准化回归系数 （Beta）。

Table 20. Simple linear regression model between the scores and classifications obtained in the motor tests and the math test.

	r	R2	R2 (Aj)	R2–R2(Aj)	F	p
Threading beads score	0.165	0.025	0.015	0.010	2.291	0.134
Threading beads classification	0.280	0.078	0.067	0.011	6.949	0.010 *
IVM score	0.404	0.163	0.153	0.010	15.986	<0.001 **
IVM classification	0.361	0.130	0.120	0.010	12.300	0.001 **
Threading beads + IVM score	0.415	0.172	0.162	0.010	17.012	<0.001 **
Threading beads + IVM classification	0.411	0.169	0.159	0.010	16.657	<0.001 **

Legend. *—p < 0.05; **—p ≤ 0.001; F—F-ratio (significance of R²); p—significance level; r—Pearson’s correlation; R²—influence on WPPSI-R arithmetic test; R²–R²(Aj)—explains the generalization of the association.

Table 21. Coefficients of the simple regression model between the scores and classifications obtained in the tests and the mathematics test.

	β	Dp	Beta	t	p
Constant	8.129	0.992		8.192	<0.001 **
Threading beads score	0.170	0.112	0.165	1.514	0.134
Constant	1.219	0.239		5.098	<0.001 **
Threading beads score	0.304	0.115	0.280	2.636	0.010 *
Constant	1.692	1.989		0.851	0.397
IVM score	0.091	0.023	0.404	3.998	<0.001 **
Constant	1.126	0.213		5.298	<0.001 **
IVM classification	0.434	0.124	0.361	3.507	0.001 *
Constant	1.228	2.040		0.602	0.549
Threading beads + IVM score	0.088	0.021	0.415	4.125	<0.001 **
Constant	0.804	0.260		3.095	0.003 *
Threading beads + IVM classification	0.289	0.071	0.411	4.081	<0.001 **

Legend. β—non-standard coefficients; SD—standard deviation; Beta—standard coefficients; t—t test; p—significance level; *—p < 0.05; **—p < 0.001.

By interpreting Table 20 and Table 21, a positive association (r > 0; Beta > 0) was found between the scores and respective classifications of the motor tests with the WPPSI-R arithmetic test. With the exception of the association between threading beads test scores and the arithmetic test, all other associations proved linearity by the F-test (p < 0.05), which means that all these associations were valid and the WPPSI-R arithmetic test result can be explained by the threading beads test score (F = 6.949; p = 0.010), the score and classification of the VMI test (F = 15.986; p < 0.001; F = 12.300; p = 0.001) and the sum of the scores and classifications of the threading beads test and VMI test (F = 17.012; p < 0.001; F = 16.657; p < 0.001). However, although the classification of the threading beads test was valid to explain the result of the arithmetic test (F = 6.949; p = 0.010; R² = 7.8%), its correlation with this test was low (r = 0.280). These data suggest that the threading beads test, despite its classification, explains 7.8% of the result of the arithmetic test, and, according to Polit and Beck [54], this value is low. Thus, the threading beads test alone is not the most recommended test to explain the results of the WPPSI-R arithmetic test.
通过解释表 20 和表 21，正关联 （r > 0;Beta > 0） 在 WPPSI-R 算术测试的运动测试的分数和相应分类之间发现。除了穿线珠测试分数和算术测试之间的关联外，所有其他关联都通过 F 检验证明线性 （p < 0.05），这意味着所有这些关联都是有效的，WPPSI-R 算术测试结果可以用穿线珠测试分数 （F = 6.949;p = 0.010）、VMI 测试的分数和分类 （F = 15.986;p < 0.001;F = 12.300;p = 0.001） 以及穿线珠测试和 VMI 测试的分数和分类之和 （F = 17.012;p < 0.001;F = 16.657;p < 0.001）。然而，尽管穿线珠测试的分类可以有效地解释算术测试的结果 （F = 6.949;p = 0.010;R² = 7.8%），其与该检验的相关性较低 （r = 0.280）。这些数据表明，尽管进行了分类，但穿线珠测试可以解释 7.8% 的算术测试结果，并且根据 Polit 和 Beck [54] 的说法，该值很低。因此，单独的穿线珠测试并不是解释 WPPSI-R 算术测试结果的最推荐测试。

Regarding the adapted VMI test, the association of scores and classifications with the WPPSI-R arithmetic test, r = 0.404 and r = 0.361, respectively, in addition to proving the existence of linearity, explain 16.3% (R² = 0.163) and 13.0% (R² = 0.130) of the results of the arithmetic test. These values present an average effect [54], and the value of the correlations (r), according to Hopkins et al. [55], show a moderate effect. These results suggest that VMI test scores and classifications may be used to explain the results of the WPPSI-R arithmetic test.
关于改编的 VMI 测试，分数和分类与 WPPSI-R 算术测试的关联，分别为 r = 0.404 和 r = 0.361，除了证明线性的存在外，还解释了 16.3% （R² = 0.163） 和 13.0% （R² = 0.130） 算术测试的结果。这些值呈现出平均效应[54]，而根据Hopkins等[55]的研究，相关性值（r）显示出中等效应。这些结果表明，VMI 测试分数和分类可用于解释 WPPSI-R 算术测试的结果。

Similarly, when adding the scores and classifications of the adapted motor tests, threading beads test and VMI test, the values of the association with the WPPSI-R arithmetic test increased (r = 0.415 and r = 0.411, respectively), as well as the influence on the arithmetic test (sum of scores: R² = 0.172; 17.2%; sum of scores: R² = 0.169; 16.9%).
同样，当加上适应的运动测试、穿线珠测试和 VMI 测试的分数和分类时，与 WPPSI-R 算术测试的关联值增加（分别为 r = 0.415 和 r = 0.411），以及对算术测试的影响（分数总和：R² = 0.172;17.2%;分数总和：R² = 0.169;16.9%）。

The high variance in the difference between R²–R²(Aj) > 0.01 in all regression models is noteworthy, in which subtraction values lower than or equal to 0.004 (0.4%) would allow generalization. Thus, these data indicate that if these models were derived from the general population instead of a sample, they would not explain values lower than or equal to 0.4% of the variance, i.e., these models cannot be generalized to the general population.
值得注意的是，在所有回归模型中，R²–R²（Aj） > 0.01 之间的差异存在高方差，其中小于或等于 0.004 （0.4%） 的减法值将允许泛化。因此，这些数据表明，如果这些模型来自一般总体而不是样本，它们将无法解释小于或等于 0.4% 方差的值，即，这些模型不能推广到一般总体。

4. Discussion 4. 讨论

This study had as its starting point the survey of the difficulties found by kindergarten teachers when evaluating the FMS of their students in the classroom context. These difficulties made it possible to identify the motor tests that presented characteristics more suited to the needs of kindergarten teachers for this purpose. The lack of training together with the lack of material resources were the difficulties most reported by kindergarten teachers. Regarding material resources, this limitation could be overcome, as it would depend only on a monetary issue to solve the problem. However, with regard to training, most instruments to evaluate FMS have features that require significant expertise [34,35]. Thus, without such training, it is difficult for kindergarten teachers to have the knowledge of these instruments regarding their objectives, application procedures, scoring and classification [34]. A fact to highlight in the results obtained in the questionnaire to kindergarten teachers was the fact that, despite not carrying out FMS evaluations, they promote tasks in the classroom context with the aim of working and developing these skills. However, although it is considered very important to carry out these kinds of tasks in the classroom, it is hardly possible for kindergarten teachers to monitor the development of FMS in their students. On the other hand, preschool classes are made up of many students with very heterogeneous ages, which, given the characteristics of most instruments to evaluate FMS, practically makes their use by kindergarten teachers unfeasible, since, in addition to the necessary training, a lot of time will be required for this purpose [14]. Given the context, and the high number of instruments available for the same purpose [71], there was a need to select the motor tests that best fit the reality faced by kindergarten teachers on a daily basis to simultaneously evaluate FMS in the classroom context. Despite the difficulties, given their importance in the diagnosis of FMS, these evaluations should be performed [14] and the tests adjusted to their purpose [61].
本研究以调查幼儿园教师在课堂环境中评估学生的 FMS 时发现的困难为出发点。这些困难使得确定呈现出更适合幼儿园教师为此目的的需求的特征的运动测试成为可能。缺乏培训以及缺乏物质资源是幼儿园教师报告最多的困难。关于物质资源，这个限制是可以克服的，因为它只取决于货币问题来解决问题。然而，在培训方面，大多数评估FMS的工具都具有需要大量专业知识的特征[34,35]。因此，如果没有这样的培训，幼儿园教师很难掌握这些工具的目标、申请程序、评分和分类的知识[34]。在对幼儿园教师的问卷调查结果中强调的一个事实是，尽管没有进行 FMS 评估，但他们在课堂环境中促进任务，目的是工作和发展这些技能。然而，尽管在课堂上执行这类任务被认为非常重要，但幼儿园教师几乎不可能监控学生 FMS 的发展。另一方面，学前班由许多年龄差异很大的学生组成，鉴于大多数评估 FMS 的工具的特性，实际上幼儿园教师无法使用它们，因为除了必要的培训外，还需要大量时间用于此目的 [14]。 考虑到环境以及可用于相同目的的大量工具[71]，需要选择最适合幼儿园教师日常面临的现实的运动测试，以同时在课堂环境中评估FMS。尽管存在困难，但鉴于它们在 FMS 诊断中的重要性，应进行这些评估 [14] 并根据其目的调整检查[61]。

The second objective of this study was to select and adapt the motor tests that showed characteristics that would allow an easier application by the kindergarten teachers simultaneously to the class in the classroom context. After demonstrating the results, to evaluate FMC, the threading beads test of band 1 of the MABC-2 Manual Dexterity [41] was selected, and the VMI test [47] was selected to evaluate VMI.
本研究的第二个目标是选择和调整运动测试，这些测试显示出允许幼儿园教师在课堂环境中同时更容易地应用于课堂的特征。在演示结果后，为了评估 FMC，选择了 MABC-2 手部灵活性 [41] 的带 1 的穿线珠测试，并选择了 VMI 测试 [47] 来评估 VMI。

Regarding the threading beads test, despite the numerous advantages, the major limitation was related to the type of application since this test was designed to evaluate children individually [41]. This type of evaluation makes the kindergarten teacher focus only on the child being evaluated, neglecting the others, and it requires a long time to evaluate all the students. This limitation would make it practically impossible for the kindergarten teachers to evaluate the FMC. Since there is no world-class criteria-referenced motor test to diagnose children with motor disorder [69], and tests must be adapted to their purpose [61], there was a need to adapt the threading beads test. This adaptation allowed its simultaneous application to the class, reducing application time and allowing all the children to perform the same task at the same time. Thus, the most relevant adaptation proposal was related to how to quantify the number of cubes strung on the string, where the score to be assigned would not be determined by the time it would take the child to string all the cubes, but rather by the number of cubes the child would string on the string in a given time interval.
关于穿线珠测试，尽管有许多优点，但主要限制与应用类型有关，因为该测试旨在单独评估儿童 [41]。这种类型的评估使幼儿园老师只关注被评估的孩子，而忽略了其他孩子，并且需要很长时间来评估所有学生。这一限制将使幼儿园教师几乎不可能评估 FMC。由于没有世界级的标准参考运动试验来诊断儿童运动障碍[69]，并且测试必须根据其目的进行调整[61]，因此有必要调整穿线珠试验。这种适应允许其同时应用于课堂，减少了应用时间并允许所有孩子同时执行相同的任务。因此，最相关的适应建议与如何量化串在字符串上的立方体数量有关，其中要分配的分数不是由孩子串所有立方体所需的时间决定的，而是由孩子在给定的时间间隔内在字符串上串的立方体数量决定的。

Motor evaluation studies using the MABC-2 have common features, i.e., they use the same procedures and standardized test scores, which emerged from the validation process of the instrument based on a sample in the UK [41]. In the MABC-2 manual, there is no evidence related to construct validity, and content validity was performed according to the evaluation of an evaluation committee based on the motor tasks of the first version of the MABC [72]. The implications of the abovementioned aspects demonstrate the need to restructure the instrument [73] with the withdrawal of some tests [74] and the reduction of the frequency of error in the final classification of the diagnosis of motor disorder in the children evaluated [75]. In a study carried out in China, the authors concluded that the reproducibility and validity of band 1 of the MABC-2 were poor, emphasizing the need to adjust part of the items to improve the psychometric properties of the test when applied to Chinese children aged 3 to 6 years [74]. For example, studies have shown that, in the Manual Dexterity dimension of band 1, the bike trail task showed low correlation with the threading beads task [57,74,76,77], and the reliability value increased when the bike trail item was removed from the analysis [63,64,68]. Regarding the classification of the child’s motor performance, a study carried out in the Netherlands [69], in which the original cut-off points for the diagnosis of motor disorder were maintained (≤7), the study concluded that there would be a higher number of children classified with motor disorder than expected, ranging from 16.2 to 31.3%, depending on the motor task evaluated. Thus, by maintaining the original standardization of the instrument, there is a possibility of underestimating children’s motor performance [69].
使用 MABC-2 的运动评估研究具有共同的特点，即它们使用相同的程序和标准化测试分数，这些分数来自基于英国样本的仪器验证过程 [41]。在 MABC-2 手册中，没有与结构效度相关的证据，内容效度是根据评估委员会根据 MABC 第一版的运动任务进行的评估进行的 [72]。上述方面的含义表明，需要重组工具[73]，取消一些测试[74]，并减少对所评估儿童运动障碍诊断的最终分类中的错误频率[75]。在中国进行的一项研究中，作者得出结论，MABC-2 的 1 级的可重复性和效度很差，强调需要调整部分项目，以改善应用于 3 至 6 岁中国儿童的心理测量特性 [74]。例如，研究表明，在频段 1 的手动灵巧性维度中，自行车步道任务与穿线珠任务的相关性较低 [57,74,76,77]，并且当从分析中删除自行车步道项时，可靠性值会增加 [63,64,68]。关于儿童运动表现的分类，在荷兰进行的一项研究 [69]，其中维持了诊断运动障碍的原始临界点 （≤7），该研究得出结论，被归类为运动障碍的儿童数量将高于预期，从 16.2 到 31 不等。3%，具体取决于评估的运动任务。因此，通过保持仪器的原始标准化，有可能低估儿童的运动表现[69]。

The adaptation of the threading beads test was justified given the divergence in the studies carried out with the MABC-2 regarding the procedures, scores and psychometric properties, which reported the need for a restructuring of the instrument [73]. In this sense, each test should be adjusted to each context, purpose, need and reality [61].
鉴于使用 MABC-2 进行的研究在程序、评分和心理测量特性方面存在差异，因此对穿线珠测试的调整是合理的，这些研究报告了对该工具进行重组的必要性 [73]。从这个意义上说，每个测试都应该根据每个环境、目的、需求和现实进行调整 [61]。

Regarding the adapted VMI test, its selection was mainly due to the fact that it can be applied either individually or in groups of children [47], which allows a significant reduction in the application time and ensures that all students perform the same task at the same time. The main adaptation was in terms of the materials to be used in the test since the original test consists of seven sheets and the adaptation allowed the use of only one sheet. This measure allows a very significant saving associated with natural resources.
关于改编后的 VMI 测试，其选择主要是因为它可以单独应用或以儿童为一组 [47]，这可以显着减少应用时间并确保所有学生同时执行相同的任务。主要的调整是测试中使用的材料，因为最初的测试由七张纸组成，而调整只允许使用一张纸。这项措施可以节省与自然资源相关的非常可观的开支。

Of the standard-referenced available tests, the VMI test [47] is one of the most widely used tools to evaluate VMI by occupational therapists [78,79,80], teachers and kindergarten teachers [81]. The VMI test is based on the combination of fine motor skills and visuospatial perceptual skills [82] and is composed of several subprocesses: perceiving and understanding spatial orientation, synthesizing parts into a whole, constructing and manipulating representations and reproducing models through controlled muscle movements [17,83]. The primary purpose of the VMI test is to help identify significant difficulties that some children have in VMI that may lead to learning, behavioral and neuropsychological problems. Through early identification, it is hoped that later difficulties can be prevented by appropriate educational, medical or other intervention [47]. Additionally, it can serve a wide variety of purposes in educational, neuropsychological and other forms of basic research [47].
在标准参考的可用测试中，VMI 测试 [47] 是职业治疗师 [78,79,80]、教师和幼儿园教师 [81] 评估 VMI 的最广泛使用的工具之一。VMI 测试基于精细运动技能和视觉空间感知技能的结合 [82]，由几个子过程组成：感知和理解空间定向、将各个部分合成为一个整体、构建和操纵表征以及通过受控的肌肉运动复制模型 [17,83].VMI 测试的主要目的是帮助识别一些儿童在 VMI 中遇到的可能导致学习、行为和神经心理问题的重大困难。通过早期识别，希望可以通过适当的教育、医疗或其他干预来防止以后的困难[47]。此外，它还可用于教育、神经心理学和其他形式的基础研究[47]。

The VMI test is designed to evaluate VMI on the premise that the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts, and the parts can work well independently, but not in combination. In other words, a child may have good visual and motor perception but show difficulties in integrating both parts [47].
VMI 测试旨在评估 VMI，前提是整体可能大于其部分之和，并且各部分可以独立工作，但不能组合工作。换句话说，儿童可能具有良好的视觉和运动感知能力，但在整合这两个部分方面表现出困难 [47]。

The last objective of this study was to validate the tests through degree of reliability, by the test-retest method and predictive criterion validation, to analyze the association between adapted motor tests and mathematical abilities.
本研究的最后一个目标是通过信度验证测试，通过重测法和预测标准验证，分析适应性运动测试与数学能力之间的关联。

Regarding the degree of reliability, the results were excellent (ICC > 0.92), which means that the adapted motor tests, threading beads and VMI, can be administered simultaneously to the class group, since their results were stable between all the evaluations, group and individual.
关于可靠性程度，结果非常好 （ICC > 0.92），这意味着调整的运动测试、穿线珠和 VMI 可以同时对班级组进行，因为它们的结果在所有评估之间是稳定的，小组和个人。

Studies conducted with preschool children that examined the reliability of the age band 1 MABC-2 by the interobserver test-retest method obtained an intraclass correlation of good [59,84,85] to excellent [86]. A study carried out with children aged between 3 and 13 years obtained high intra- and interobserver reliability in all MABC-2 tests [87]. In addition, band 1 of the Spanish version of the MABC-2, which obtained adequate reliability, could be used to evaluate motor development in preschoolers [88]. In an investigation of the MABC-2, age band 1, according to its reliability (test-retest), in which 201 preschool children participated, the results indicated a quite acceptable ICC in the items observed in manual dexterity [89].
对学龄前儿童进行的研究通过观察者间重测法检查了 1 年龄段 MABC-2 的可靠性，获得了良好 [59,84,85] 到极好的类内相关性 [86]。一项针对 3-13 岁儿童的研究在所有 MABC-2 检测中均获得了较高的观察者内和观察者间可靠性 [87]。此外，西班牙语版MABC-2的1频段获得了足够的可靠性，可用于评估学龄前儿童的运动发育[88]。在对 MABC-2 年龄段 1 的调查中，根据其信度（重测），有 201 名学龄前儿童参与，结果表明在手部灵活性中观察到的项目 ICC 相当可接受 [89]。

Regarding the VMI test, it was standardized and normalized 6 times between 1964 and 2010 with a US population of more than 12,500 children aged 2 to 18 years. The stability of the results by age group across reviews was certified and showed good psychometric properties, including a test-retest reliability of 0.88 and an interobserver reliability of 0.93 [47]. The validation of the VMI test was subsequently carried out in other European and South American countries, with a consensus on its validity and robustness as well as its resistance to cultural influences [90,91,92,93]. However, results from studies have shown different patterns in the VMI performance in different cultures, especially among preschool and school-aged children [94,95]. Thus, cultural variables can affect children’s performance in visuomotor skills evaluation tests [96]. However, the VMI test has provided evidence of its ability to identify academic problems [81,82], as VMI can influence mathematics performance in preschool children [27,28,29,30,31,32,33].
关于 VMI 测试，它在 1964 年至 2010 年间对 12,500 多名 2 至 18 岁的美国人口进行了 6 次标准化和标准化。各年龄组结果的稳定性得到了认证，并显示出良好的心理测量特性，包括重测信度为 0.88 和观察者间信度为 0.93 [47]。随后在其他欧洲和南美国家对VMI测试进行了验证，并就其有效性和稳健性以及对文化影响的抵抗力达成了共识[90,91,92,93]。然而，研究结果显示，不同文化中 VMI 表现的模式不同，尤其是在学龄前和学龄儿童中 [94,95]。因此，文化变量会影响儿童在视觉运动技能评估测试中的表现 [96]。然而，VMI 测试提供了其识别学业问题的能力的证据 [81,82]，因为 VMI 可以影响学龄前儿童的数学成绩 [27,28,29,30,31,32,33]。

The predictive criterion validation aimed to analyze the relationship between the adapted motor tests, threading beads and VMI, and the arithmetic test of WPPSI-R. With the exception of the association between the threading beads test scores and the arithmetic test, all other associations proved linearity by the F-test (p < 0.05), which means that all these associations were valid, and the WPPSI-R score could be explained by the threading beads test score, VMI test score and classification and the sum of the threading beads and VMI test scores and classifications. Although the threading beads test score was valid to explain the result of the arithmetic test (F = 6.949; p = 0.010; R² = 7.8%), its correlation with this test was low (r = 0.280). These data suggest that the threading beads test alone is not the most recommended test to explain the results of the WPPSI-R arithmetic test. On the contrary, VMI approves the association of scores and classifications with the WPPSI-R, in addition to proving the existence of linearity, they explained the results of the WPPSI-R by 16.3% and 13.0%, respectively, representing an average effect [54] and the value of correlations a moderate effect [55]. These results suggest that VMI test scores and classification can be used to explain the results of the WPPSI-R arithmetic test.
预测标准验证旨在分析适应的运动测试、穿线珠和 VMI 以及 WPPSI-R 的算术测试之间的关系。除了穿线珠测试分数和算术测试之间的关联外，所有其他关联都通过 F 检验证明线性 （p < 0.05），这意味着所有这些关联都是有效的，WPPSI-R 分数可以用穿线珠测试分数、VMI 测试分数和分类以及穿线珠和 VMI 测试分数和分类的总和来解释。尽管穿线珠测试分数对于解释算术测试的结果有效 （F = 6.949;p = 0.010;R² = 7.8%），其与该检验的相关性较低 （r = 0.280）。这些数据表明，单独的穿线珠测试并不是解释 WPPSI-R 算术测试结果的最推荐测试。相反，VMI 赞同分数和分类与 WPPSI-R 的关联，除了证明线性的存在外，他们还解释了 WPPSI-R 的结果分别提高了 16.3% 和 13.0%，代表了平均效应 [54]，相关性的值是中等效应 [55]。这些结果表明，VMI 测试分数和分类可用于解释 WPPSI-R 算术测试的结果。

The literature has shown that VMI is, among the FMS, the one that most stands out in association with mathematical skills [14] and is also reported as an important factor for the diagnosis of mathematics learning difficulties [31]. Although our study also highlighted the adapted VMI test as the best predictor of mathematics performance, the threading beads test also contributed positively to association with mathematical skills. Some studies that included both FMS concluded that both FMC and VMI were predictors of mathematics performance [21,22,23,24].
文献表明，在 FMS 中，VMI 是与数学技能相关的最突出的一种 [14]，并且也被报道为诊断数学学习困难的重要因素 [31]。尽管我们的研究还强调适应性 VMI 测试是数学成绩的最佳预测指标，但穿线珠测试也对与数学技能的关联做出了积极贡献。一些同时包括 FMS 的研究得出结论，FMC 和 VMI 都是数学成绩的预测指标 [21,22,23,24]。

According to Beery & Beery [82], VMI involves the integration of visual and motor skills coordinated through the fingers and hands, that is, the FMC. In this sense, FMC plays a very important role in school success [35,48,97], as children with better FMC may be better at manipulating objects, such as pencils or notebooks, which allows them to direct additional attention resources to learning rather than focusing them on movements associated with FMC [23]. In this sense, a child with a good FMC, when performing an academic task, may impose a lower cognitive load compared to a child who still shows difficulties in FMC [98,99].
根据Beery & Beery [82]，VMI涉及通过手指和手协调的视觉和运动技能的整合，即FMC。从这个意义上说，FMC 在学校成功中起着非常重要的作用 [35,48,97]，因为 FMC 较好的孩子可能更擅长操作物体，例如铅笔或笔记本，这使他们能够将额外的注意力资源用于学习，而不是将注意力集中在与 FMC 相关的动作上 [23]。从这个意义上说，与在 FMC 中仍然表现出困难的孩子相比，FMC 良好的孩子在执行学业任务时可能会施加较低的认知负荷 [98,99]。

However, the VMI is a complex and multifaceted construct that relies on both attention and FMC, as well as their integration, and as such is critical to adjustment to multiple aspects of school performance, including mathematics [17]. In a cross-sectional sample of 5- to 18-year-olds, Carlson et al. [17] found that VMI was associated with mathematics achievement, even after controlling for gender, socioeconomic status, FMC and intelligence quotient. The strong association between VMI and mathematics may arise because the components that are necessary for successful VMI are also implicated in mathematics learning [100,101,102]. In addition, neurobiological research indicates that the parietal cortex is an area of the brain that is particularly active during both VMI tasks and numerical processing [103]. Relatedly, VMI may contribute to the development of the mental number line [101] as well as to developing the understanding of part–whole relationships [33], both of which are important for mathematics performance. Research suggests that rudimentary FMC may not directly contribute to mathematics skills but rather may do so indirectly through other more complex skills [104], such as VMI. For instance, Sortor and Kulp [18] found that FMC was no longer significantly related to mathematics after controlling for attention and VMI in their sample of second through fourth graders. Similarly, FMC was not associated with mathematics achievement after controlling for VMI [17]. Although FMC is important for providing immediate access to mathematical learning through interacting with the environment [83], additional development beyond a certain skill level may not directly contribute to mathematics performance. Instead, FMC may be a prerequisite for other higher order cognitive processes, such as VMI and attention, which are more directly important for mathematics [105].
然而，VMI 是一个复杂而多方面的结构，它依赖于注意力和 FMC 以及它们的整合，因此对于适应学校表现的多个方面（包括数学）至关重要 [17]。在 5 至 18 岁青少年的横断面样本中，Carlson 等人 [17] 发现，即使在控制了性别、社会经济地位、FMC 和智商之后，VMI 也与数学成绩相关。VMI 和数学之间可能存在很强的关联，因为 VMI 成功所必需的组成部分也与数学学习有关[100,101,102]。此外，神经生物学研究表明，顶叶皮层是大脑中在 VMI 任务和数值处理过程中特别活跃的区域 [103]。与此相关，VMI 可能有助于心理数字线 [101] 的发展以及发展对部分-整体关系的理解 [33]，这两者都对数学表现很重要。研究表明，基本的 FMC 可能不会直接促进数学技能，而是可能通过其他更复杂的技能间接做出贡献 [104]，例如 VMI。例如，Sortor 和 Kulp [18] 发现，在控制了二年级至四年级学生样本中的注意力和 VMI 后，FMC 不再与数学显着相关。同样，在控制 VMI 后，FMC 与数学成绩无关 [17]。 尽管FMC对于通过与环境交互提供直接的数学学习非常重要[83]，但超出一定技能水平的额外发展可能不会直接影响数学成绩。相反，FMC 可能是其他高阶认知过程的先决条件，例如 VMI 和注意力，这些过程对数学更直接重要 [105]。

However, since the main objective of this study was to suggest a preliminary adaptation of motor tests that evaluated the FMS associated with mathematical skills to enable kindergarten teachers to apply them simultaneously to the class in a classroom context, the adapted VMI test seems to be the most adjusted to the reality faced by kindergarten teachers in their daily lives. Despite this suggestion, given the importance of the FMC in VMI [82] and the results evidenced in association with mathematical skills in preschool children [14], the kindergarten teacher may also include the adapted threading beads test to evaluate FMS.
然而，由于本研究的主要目的是建议对评估与数学技能相关的 FMS 的运动测试进行初步调整，以使幼儿园教师能够在课堂环境中同时将它们应用于课堂，因此调整后的 VMI 测试似乎最适应幼儿园教师在日常生活中面临的现实。尽管有这种建议，但鉴于 FMC 在 VMI 中的重要性 [82] 以及与学龄前儿童数学技能相关的结果证明 [14]，幼儿园教师还可以包括适应性穿线珠测试来评估 FMS。

5. Conclusions 5. 结论

This study aimed to perform a preliminary adaptation of motor tests to evaluate the FMS associated with mathematical skills to allow kindergarten teachers to apply them simultaneously to a preschool class, in a short period of time, with few material resources and easy access or acquisition and without the need for extensive training in test administration, scoring and classification. Although the threading beads test showed an excellent degree of reliability and a positive association with mathematical skills, the adapted VMI test, in addition to showing an excellent degree of reliability, showed a more robust result in the association with mathematical skills. In this sense, and according to the proposed objective, the adapted VMI test seems to be the most suitable one to be used by kindergarten teachers in the classroom to evaluate simultaneously the FMS associated with mathematical skills of their students.
本研究旨在对运动测试进行初步调整，以评估与数学技能相关的 FMS，以使幼儿园教师能够在短时间内将它们同时应用于学前班，物质资源很少，易于访问或获取，无需广泛的测试管理培训， 评分和分类。尽管穿线珠测试显示出极好的可靠性程度和与数学技能的正相关，但适应性 VMI 测试除了显示出极好的可靠性外，在与数学技能的关联方面也显示出更稳健的结果。从这个意义上说，根据拟议的目标，改编后的 VMI 测试似乎是最适合幼儿园教师在课堂上使用的测试，以同时评估与学生数学技能相关的 FMS。