Assessment of motor functioning may be affected by other aspects of individual functioning. For example, Green and colleagues (2016) found that FSIQ contributes considerably to Beery VMI performance. Similar conclusions about the effect of cognitive ability on motor assessment performance were drawn from a study using the BOT-2, as well (Jeoung, 2018). Language and communication may also affect motor assessment. For example, use of a picture activity schedule (rather than with verbal instructions) when administering the MABC-2 was found to elicit better motor skill performance among children with ASD (Liu & Breslin, 2013a). PEDI-CAT results have been found to be associated with management of life tasks, which are essential for independence, among children and adolescents with ASD (Kao, Kramer, Liljenquist, & Coster, 2014).
Research regarding ASD symptom severity relationship to motor functioning is sparse. However, visuomotor functioning was not associated with overall level of ASD severity in a study conducted by Green et al. (2016). However, McDonald et al. (2014) warned against comparing results of different motor assessments, even when they purport to measure the same constructs. Rather, assessment using multiple instruments and approaches is most likely to yield results useful for serving student needs. This also can include data about motor functioning from parents. Kramer and colleagues (2016) found the PEDI-CAT to be a parent-friendly and reliable instrument for this purpose.
Also limited is research regarding ways motor assessment may inform intervention for persons with ASD. However, the SFA was found to be a tool useful for helping with school-based planning, specifically (Davies, Soon, Young, & Clausen-Yamaki, 2004). However, the available research does underscore the need to consider multiple aspects of individuals’ functioning during assessment of motor functioning, as well as to gather data from multiple sources and approaches.