A Comparison of the BOT-3 and Movement ABC-3 Assessments

Getting dressed. Feeding ourselves. Toileting. Brushing our teeth.

These self-care tasks require coordinated fine and gross motor movements.

Using pencils and crayons to draw.  Cutting paper with scissors.

These tasks with “tools” require coordinated fine and gross motor movements.

Playing football. Dancing, Completing puzzles. Playing a board game.

These leisure activities require coordinated fine and gross motor movements.

We need to move our bodies in a coordinated way to perform fine and gross motor tasks, at home, at school and in the community.   

When considering fine and gross motor movements, we can look at how the body works as a whole.  This might include using both legs together for jumping, eyes and hands together for catching and throwing, hands and eyes together for drawing, left and right hand together to manipulate paper for cutting.  We may also focus on smaller components like the hand and fingers to move a small item into a container.

When choosing an occupational therapy assessment, we consider several factors including the age of the child, the reason for testing and reporting, standardised or criterion-referenced tests, skills-based or functional focus, observations by parents and teachers and practical considerations (eg. time, child’s attention, environment, training, access, online administration and scoring).

Sometimes it is difficult to make a choice.

A real comparison is only possible through experience and knowledge of several assessments.  It is also guided by the population of children (or adults) that you currently serve.  Your decision may change with these factors. 

​The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency – Third edition (BOT-3) and the Movement Assessment Battery for Children – Third edition (MABC-3) are two popular motor-based assessments.  In this article, we compare these assessments to help therapists to make an informed decision about which to use. I provide an objective and subjective comparison. 

Which one to choose?

The BOT-3 and MABC-3 are well-known and respected standardised tests.  They each have important functions to guide clinical reporting and decision making. Both assessments include goal directed tasks and some test items are very similar. There are also some significant differences between the tests.

I particularly like the comprehensive in-depth analysis of fine and gross motor skills of the BOT-3.  There are more pencil and paper tasks as well as scissor skills task which the MABC 3 does not have.  This is explained as the authors of the MABC 3 were instrumental in the development of the Detailed Assessment of Speed of Handwriting (DASH-2) which has also been standardised on the same population as the MABC 3, bringing these instruments closer together. Therefore, if I require information about an individual’s pencil control, I would choose the BOT-3 or use a supplementary test with the MABC 3 to make these observations.

The BOT-3 includes subtests with specific examination of bilateral coordination – same side and opposite side synchronization as well as crossing the midline. This is valuable information about an individual’s movement patterns. Strength subtests also include familiar (dare I say “classic”) measurements of prone extension and supine flexion, which have been recognised as important indicators of motor skills.

Both the BOT-3 and MABC 3 acknowledge that there are non-motor factors that affect motor performance.  The BOT-3 includes subtests which provide information about motor planning and coordination.  Examiners can also record background and behavioural observations, considerations, accommodations, attention, fluidity of movement, effort and understanding.   The MABC 3’s record form provides for specific qualitative observations of posture/body control (ie. posture, grip/grasp, coordination, consistency of hand use, fluency), adaptations to task requirements (ie. space, time, force) and fourteen non-motor factors (such as attention, impulsivity, anxiety, persistence, etc) that might affect movement. The prompts provided are helpful, especially to those who are new to assessment observations. Significant recording of non-motor factors may also prompt consideration of further testing of executive functioning skills.

The MABC 3 checklists are unique in providing parent, educator or self-reporting of movement and coordination.  These checklists include observations/reporting of manual dexterity related to personal care, home and classroom participation, drawing/writing/keyboarding.  They also include aiming/catching and balance/locomotion information.  It is useful to know the functional implications of fine and gross motor difficulties and may inform future goals for OT. Similarly to the MABC 3 Test, the checklists ask the person completing to make comment on the fourteen non-motor factors that may also affect movement. The self-reporting for older children and adults can be especially valuable information gathered with the MABC 3.  This can help identify personal insights about strengths and weaknesses.

The MABC 3 has been designed with practicality in mind.  The provision of the pre-measured walking lines makes set up simple and the rolling trolley bag with compartments has been thoughtfully considered. It makes transporting the assessment from one site to another ergonomic and compact.  This compares with the BOT-3 which requires you to bring a suitable tape measure and painter’s tape to prepare the area for testing. As a mobile therapist, I appreciate the ease of setting up the MABC-3, however if I had a clinic this would be a moot point as either test could be prepared for multiple clients in the one space. The BOT-3 is considerably more light weight than the BOT-2 as the heavy balance beam is no longer needed, although it can also still be used if you have it already. 

​The MABC 3 would be my choice for younger children and those with known difficulties with attention, language and behavioural considerations. As the test items have been designed for specific age groups, they are more engaging and there are less multiple-step tasks. Each subtest does not require a lot of verbal instruction. Set up and modelling is easy to do and the activities themselves are engaging.  The manipulatives are different sizes to suit the different age ranges. Colour coding is helpful to know which record forms and checklists to use.  The “drawing circles” response sheet also needs to match with the correct age band. Consequently, there needs to be familiarity with differences in administering the correct subtests according to age and different items used within the kit.   
​
The BOT-3 items are administered to all age groups. This makes administration simple with one response booklet, one record form and one set of items to become familiar with conducting. I am personally very familiar with the BOT-2 so learning the BOT-3 was not a big jump.  I reach for the BOT-3 particularly for school age children where I want to assess and report on their motor skills. The manipulative fine motor skills tasks are easy to administer. The children themselves loved the timed challenges, often determined to beat their own scores.  The visual motor integration information is useful when considering the implication for school functions such as copying from the board, reading and writing. Some of the bilateral coordination and gross motor tasks may be more difficult for younger children to follow, especially if they have language delays or inattention. 

The BOT-3 and MABC 3 are both important motor skills assessments.  As discussed, making the choice between the assessments will depend on the factors that are most important to you and your clients.   I recommend that you have both assesssments in your OT toolkit to provide you with choice when you need it. Consider the population that you serve (especially as it may be different to mine).

The BOT-3 and MABC 3 are available from Pearson Assessments.  

For more information on the BOT-3, please visit PearsonAssessments.com/BOT3.
For more information on the MABC 3, please visit PearsonAssessments.com/MABC3.

This is a sponsored article.  All opinions are my own and drawn from experience using both assessments in occupational therapy practice. If you are a therapist, save this one for reference or share the article with your colleagues to help them with a side by side comparison of these assessments. 

Until next time, 

Cindy is a registered occupational therapist practising in Sydney, Australia.  She has two growing children who are a constant source of inspiration and learning.  Cindy loves working creatively to help children to reach their potential, finding opportunities in everyday living and making learning fun. She is also addicted to making printables (even when they take a long time to complete).  Cindy is the author of the Occupational Therapy blog Your Kids OT.  Read more articles from Your Kids OT at https://www.yourkidsot.com/blog

Cindy is a contributing author of the Functional Skills for Kids Therapy Team.  They have together published THE HANDWRITING BOOK, THE SCISSORS SKILLS BOOK and THE TOILETING BOOK.

​The information on this site is general in nature. The activities are safe for most children, however, you should consult an Occupational Therapist or health professional to address specific movement, sensory or other medical conditions. Affiliate links are used throughout this website to promote recommended products. Your Kids OT receives a small commission if any purchases are made through these links. Please see my disclosure policy for more details. ​​​
YKOT shop:  https://www.yourkidsot.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html
Teachers Pay Teachers: https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Store/Your-Kids-Ot
You Tube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZUz_5nYEOCkj32DiOCQo4Q/featured
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/yourkidsot
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/yourkidsot/
Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com.au/yourkidsot/
​

---