Development and Initial Validation of a Sensor-Based Motor Tracking Device for Measuring Early Childhood Motor Skills

Authors
Agus Rusdiana 1 iD
Surya Adi Saputra 2 iD
Jaffry Bin Zakaria 3 iD
Novadri Ayubi 4 iD
Affiliations
1Faculty of Sport Science, Universitas Negeri Padang, Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia
2Faculty of Sport Science, Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang, East Java, Indonesia
3Faculty of Sports Science and Coaching, Sultan Idris Education University, Tanjong Malim 35900, Malaysia
4Department of Sport Management, Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia.
Overview

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to design a sensor-based motor tracking device and conduct initial validation to measure motor skills in early childhood.

Methods: This study employed a Research and Development (R&D) methodology. Three experts, competent in their respective fields, focused on motor skills, media, and measurement testing, participated. The validation test aimed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the designed product. Following the validation test, the resulting product was field tested. During the field test, two children, a male and a female, aged 5-6, accompanied by their parents, participated in the study.  

Results: The results of the trial and validity test by experts reported that the validity test by media experts obtained a feasibility level included in the valid category, the validity test by motor skills experts obtained a feasibility level in the valid category, and the validity test by test and measurement experts obtained a feasibility level included in the valid category. Furthermore, the results of this study reported that the sensor-based motor tracking tool for measuring early childhood motor skills is valid and suitable for use for motor skills. This tool is also very useful for teachers, lecturers, and sports practitioners as it can help in the process of measuring early childhood motor skills.

Conclusions: This research successfully developed a prototype sensor-based motor tracking device designed to measure motor skills in early childhood. Initial validation results by experts showed that the developed instrument met validity criteria in terms of media, motor skills, and testing and measurement. These findings indicate that the proposed device has the potential to be used as a practical and effective tool to support the assessment process of children's motor development by teachers, lecturers, and sports practitioners.

 

 

Motor SkillsSensor TechnologyMotor Tracking

Introduction

Motor skills are an essential part of preschool physical education programs []. These skills are essential for children aged 3-8 years as specific and complex foundational skills for play, sports, and recreational activities []. By the age of 5-6, children will have mastered several motor skills, supported by increased sensory-perceptual abilities []. Children can walk, run, pick up, and manipulate objects to some extent. Children's motor skills developed at an early age have a significant impact on their physical activity later in life []. Early life is a crucial period in a person's life span. Motor impairments in childhood may be associated with delays in other developmental domains. Movement is the main element in the development of children's basic motor skills, therefore children's motor development will be seen through the various movements they can do, such as crawling, creeping, walking and jumping []. A good movement activity program can shape and develop children's basic movement skills []. Humans need movement to work and survive from threats from their environment. Without movement skills, it is difficult for humans to survive [].

The results of a previous study indicated that 36.07% of children's basic motor skills were in the low category and 18.98% were in the very low category []. This finding is supported by a study reporting delayed locomotor and object-control skills among boys and girls in rural and urban areas of West Sumatra []. If left untreated, motor delays may be associated with movement asymmetry, persistence of primitive reflexes, hypertonia or hypotonia, impaired reflexes, and uncontrolled movements []. Furthermore, poor motor coordination may be associated with difficulties in balance, coordination, and daily motor performance [].

Alternative approaches are needed to support early childhood motor skill assessment. One possible approach is the development of a motor tracking device that uses sensor-based technology to capture selected movement-related information. Sensors are important components in the design of movement assessment tools []. Sensor-based systems may also support more engaging and practical assessment environments []. Motor skill development is associated with later physical activity, health, and obesity-related outcomes [], []. Arduino- and ultrasonic sensor-based devices have also been developed for related movement-measurement applications []. Although previous studies have discussed the importance of early motor skill development and the prevalence of motor delays, fewer studies have focused on objective technology-based assessment tools for preschool settings. This gap supports the need for preliminary development and validation of a sensor-based motor tracking prototype for early childhood motor skill assessment.

This research aims to develop a prototype sensor-based motor tracking device and to conduct an initial expert-based validation for assessing motor skills in early childhood.

Methods

Study Design

This research employed a Research and Development (R&D) methodology. Three experts in motor skills, media, and testing and measurement participated in the initial validation stage. The validation test aimed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the designed product. Following expert validation, the prototype was tested in a limited preliminary field trial.

Prototype Design

The overall structure of the motor tracking device is shown in Figure 1.

Design of the Motor Tracking Device
Article figure

The prototype was named the Motor Tracking Device: Sensor-Based Technology for Assessing Early Childhood Motor Skills. It was developed as an environment-based assessment prototype to support the measurement of early childhood motor skills through contact and timing detection. The device consisted of an aluminum frame, control cables, speakers, a scoreboard, touch sensors, pressure sensors, a switch button, and an ultrasonic sensor. These sensors were integrated into the testing environment to detect movement-related contact events and task completion, while a digital timer recorded task duration. However, detailed information on sensor specifications, sampling frequency, calibration procedures, and data-processing algorithms was not available in the present study. Therefore, these technical parameters should be clearly standardized and empirically evaluated in future validation studies. The physical device components are shown in Figure 2.

Device Components
Article figure

Research Procedures

The research procedure consisted of four sequential stages. First, the researchers designed a sensor-based motor tracking device for assessing early childhood motor skills. Second, a working prototype of the device was produced. Third, preliminary laboratory testing was conducted to examine whether the system could detect basic locomotor activities, including stepping and running. Fourth, expert-based validation was conducted with one motor skills expert, one media expert, and one test and measurement expert.

Participants

A total of two children, one boy and one girl aged 5-6 years, accompanied by their parents, participated in the limited preliminary field trial. Because of the very small sample size, the field trial should be interpreted only as a feasibility check and not as evidence of generalizable validity.

Ethical Considerations

The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of [Name of Institution] (Approval No.: [Approval Code]). Written informed consent was obtained from the parents or legal guardians of all participating children prior to enrollment. Child assent was obtained whenever appropriate according to the participants' age and level of understanding. Written permission for the publication of participant photographs was also obtained from the parents or legal guardians. All study procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and applicable institutional guidelines.

Expert Validation Instrument

The expert validation instrument is presented in Table 1. This expert-review procedure was used to support content and face validity during early instrument development [].

Expert Validation Instrument

Validity Test

Assessment

Media expert

The device's sensor performance is optimal.
The device's size meets the user's needs and characteristics.
The device's design and appearance are of good quality.
The device's ease of use is high.
The device provides effective motor skill measurement.
The device has the potential to produce measurement data; however, accuracy and reliability require further empirical testing.

Motor skills expert

The material presented in the "Motor Tracking: Sensor-Based Technology for Measuring Early Childhood Motor Skills" tool is easy to understand and aligns with the measurement objectives.
The tool has the potential to support objective motor skill assessment based on the aspects being measured; further reliability and criterion-validity testing is required.
The tool's design and procedures have been developed to efficiently implement motor skill measurement.
The tool is easy to operate and implement in the process of measuring early childhood motor skills.

Test and measurement expert

The suitability of the instrument to the construct of early childhood motor skills being measured.
The clarity of the instrument's procedures and measurement mechanisms.
The instrument's ability to objectively measure motor skills.
The instrument's suitability to testing and measurement principles.
The perceived potential accuracy of the instrument's measurement results.
The instrument's potential to produce consistent data; this should be verified in future reliability testing.

The evaluation categories were defined as follows: invalid (0-25%), less valid (26-49%), fairly valid (50-74%), and valid (75-100%).

Statistical Analysis

Because the study involved three expert ratings and a limited field trial with two children, the analysis was restricted to descriptive statistics and evidence-mapping summaries. Expert ratings were summarized using frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, and maximum values. Inferential statistical testing was not appropriate because the sample size and study design did not support hypothesis testing or group comparison.

Results

The results are organized according to the development pathway of the prototype, the preliminary functionality check, expert-based feasibility ratings, and the limited field trial. Because the study was designed as an early-stage development and validation study, the findings are interpreted as preliminary feasibility evidence rather than as definitive psychometric validation.

Prototype Development and Functional Verification

The prototype development and functional verification process is shown in Figure 3.

Prototype Fabrication Process
Article figure

Prototype Assembly and Preliminary Testing

The prototype assembly and preliminary testing process is shown in Figure 4.

Prototype Assembly Process
Article figure

Preliminary Field Feasibility Testing

The preliminary field feasibility testing process is shown in Figure 5.

Preliminary Field Testing Process
Article figure

Expert-Based Feasibility Validation

The expert-based feasibility ratings and preliminary field-trial characteristics are summarized in Tables 2-4.

Percentage and Eligibility Level of Experts

No

Expert

Percentage

Eligibility level

1

Media expert

80%

Valid

2

Motor skills expert

86%

Valid

3

Test and measurement expert

83%

Valid

Descriptive Statistics of Expert-Based Feasibility Ratings

Statistic

Value

Number of expert ratings

3

Mean ± SD (%)

83.0 ± 3.0

Median (%)

83.0

Minimum-Maximum (%)

80-86

Overall interpretation

Valid (preliminary expert-based feasibility only)

Characteristics of the Limited Preliminary Field Trial

Variable

Result

Total participants, n

2

Boys, n (%)

1 (50.0%)

Girls, n (%)

1 (50.0%)

Age range

5-6 years

Interpretation

Limited feasibility check; not evidence of generalizable validity

Expert-based appraisal supported the preliminary feasibility of the sensor-based motor tracking prototype. Domain-specific ratings were 80% for media and usability, 86% for motor-skill relevance, and 83% for testing and measurement. The overall feasibility estimate was 83.0 ± 3.0%, with a median of 83.0% and a range of 80-86%. All ratings were therefore located within the predefined valid category. The limited field trial included two children aged 5-6 years, one boy and one girl. This field component demonstrated that the prototype could be implemented in a real testing context; however, because repeated measurements, criterion comparison, measurement-error estimation, and inter-rater or test-retest reliability analyses were not performed, the field findings should be interpreted only as preliminary feasibility evidence.

The evidence map and future validation requirements are presented in Tables 5 and 6.

Evidence Map of Prototype Development and Validation Status

Development or validation element

Evidence available in this study

Interpretation

Prototype construction

Completed

The device reached a working prototype stage.

Laboratory functionality check

Completed at a preliminary level

Basic detection of selected movement tasks was examined.

Expert validation

Completed by three experts

Initial expert-based feasibility was supported.

Limited field trial

Completed with two children

Feasibility only; not generalizable validation.

Reliability testing

Not performed

Requires future repeated-measurement studies.

Criterion validity

Not performed

Requires comparison with TGMD-3 or MABC-2.

Summary of Current Evidence and Future Validation Requirements

Domain

Current evidence

Required future validation

Media and usability

Expert feasibility rating of 80%

Structured usability testing with teachers and practitioners

Motor skill relevance

Expert feasibility rating of 86%

Comparison with standardized motor skill instruments

Testing and measurement

Expert feasibility rating of 83%

Reliability, calibration, and measurement-error testing

Field application

Two-child preliminary field trial

Larger sample, repeated trials, and subgroup analysis

Technical performance

Preliminary functionality only

Sensor accuracy, sampling frequency, and algorithm validation

Discussion

This study aimed to develop a prototype sensor-based motor tracking device for assessing early childhood motor skills and to conduct an initial expert-based validation. In the initial stage, the researchers designed the motor tracking device and then produced a prototype. A preliminary laboratory test was conducted to examine basic device functionality. Subsequently, expert validation was conducted. The media expert, motor skills expert, and test and measurement expert rated the device at 80%, 86%, and 83%, respectively. According to the predefined assessment range, all three scores were classified as valid. These results indicate preliminary feasibility based on expert judgment, but they should not be interpreted as evidence of full psychometric validation.

Research on the use of sensors in product design in sports and movement assessment has increased in recent years. In this prototype, touch and pressure sensors were used to detect selected movement-related tasks, such as stepping, running, standing, and lateral steps. However, the present study did not directly test measurement accuracy, reliability, or agreement with established motor skill assessment instruments. Therefore, claims regarding automatic detection, reduced observer bias, and improved efficiency should be considered preliminary until confirmed by empirical validation.

Henderson et al. reported that smart glove technology equipped with sensors can provide valid range-of-motion measurements []. Sousa et al. showed that a sensor-based system can be used to evaluate repeated sprint capability []. Del Toro et al. found that low-cost sensor technology can be used to assess muscle fatigue []. These findings suggest that sensor-based systems can support movement measurement in several contexts. However, most previous studies have focused on athletes, adolescents, adults, sports performance, or rehabilitation, whereas the application of sensor technology to early childhood motor skill assessment remains relatively limited.

Compared with widely used motor skill measurement instruments, such as the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-3) and the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (MABC-2), the device developed in this study may have potential practical advantages. The TGMD-3 and MABC-2 have been shown to have good validity and reliability in measuring children's motor skills [], []. However, these instruments require trained observers and standardized scoring. The present prototype may reduce some observational burden by integrating sensors into the testing environment. Nevertheless, this potential advantage was not directly tested in the present study, and future research should compare the prototype with TGMD-3 and MABC-2.

The device developed in this study also differs from wearable sensor systems used in previous research [], []. Many existing systems use inertial measurement units (IMUs), accelerometers, gyroscopes, or body-worn smart devices to monitor locomotor performance [], []. Such technologies can generate detailed biomechanical data but may be less practical for some early childhood settings because of cost, device placement, and child compliance. In contrast, the present prototype uses touch and pressure sensors integrated into the testing environment. However, its practical usability and measurement accuracy must be confirmed in larger studies.

A potential contribution of this research is the early-stage application of sensor technology to motor skill assessment in young children. Previous sensor-based research has mainly focused on sports performance, rehabilitation, gait analysis, physical activity monitoring, and fatigue detection [], [], []. The present study extends this line of work toward early childhood motor development assessment. However, because the current evidence is limited to prototype development, expert appraisal, and a very small feasibility trial, stronger validation evidence is required before broad application.

This study has several limitations. First, the research focused on prototype development and expert-based validation; therefore, the psychometric characteristics of the tool, including reliability, test-retest reliability, construct validity, criterion validity, sensitivity, and specificity, have not been thoroughly tested. Second, the preliminary field trial included only two children, which prevents generalization. Third, the prototype was not compared with established instruments such as TGMD-3 or MABC-2. Fourth, the present study does not provide sufficient technical details about sensor specifications, calibration, data acquisition, or the scoring algorithm. Future studies should address these limitations through larger samples, repeated trials, technical validation, and comparison with standard motor skill assessment instruments.

Conclusion

This study developed a prototype sensor-based motor tracking device for assessing motor skills in early childhood. Initial expert validation indicated that the prototype met preliminary feasibility criteria in media, motor skills, and testing and measurement domains, with scores of 80%, 86%, and 83%, respectively. These findings suggest that the device may be promising for further development. However, the study does not yet establish full validity, reliability, sensitivity, specificity, or criterion validity. Larger field studies, repeated measurements, and comparisons with standard instruments such as TGMD-3 and MABC-2 are required before the device can be recommended for routine use by teachers, lecturers, or sports practitioners.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study, prototype development, expert-validation process, interpretation of findings, drafting, critical revision, and approval of the final manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Funding

This research was funded by the Direktorat Riset Teknologi dan Pengabdian Masyarakat (DRTPM) Riset Kolaborasi Indonesia scheme.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participating children, parents/legal guardians, and expert validators for their involvement in the preliminary field trial and prototype validation process.

References

  • [1] R. D. Burns, Y. Fu, J. C. Hannon, and T. A. Brusseau, “School physical activity programming and gross motor skills in children,” Am. J. Health Behav., 2017, doi: 10.5993/AJHB.41.5.8.
  • [2] B. Bossavit and I. Arnedillo-Sánchez, “Motion-based technology to support motor skills screening in developing children: A scoping review,” Comput. Methods Programs Biomed., vol. 240, p. 107715, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107715.
  • [3] A. Komaini, Y. Kiram, M. S. Rifki, S. G. Handayani, N. Ayubi, and R. Y. Putra, “DEVELOPMENT OF BASIC MOVEMENT SKILLS TEST INSTRUMENTS FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD,” vol. 7989, pp. 493–499, 2022, doi: 10.17309/tmfv.2022.4.06.
  • [4] J. Y. Y. Ng, S. Jiang, C. H. S. Chan, and A. S. Ha, “Assessing fundamental movement skills using the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD): Challenges and solutions to comparability and standardization.,” Sports medicine and health science, vol. 7, no. 4. Netherlands, pp. 299–301, Jul. 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.smhs.2025.02.007.
  • [5] A. Tsapakidou, S. Stefanidou, and E. Tsompanaki, “Locomotor Development of Children Aged 3.5 to 5 Years in Nursery Schools in Greece,” Rev. Eur. Stud., vol. 6, p. 1, Mar. 2014, doi: 10.5539/res.v6n2p1.
  • [6] R. Famelia and S. Bakhtiar, “Future Directions in Physical Education & Sport: Developing Fundamental Motor Competence in the Early Years Is Paramount to Lifelong Physical Activity,” Asian Soc. Sci., vol. 10, p. 44, Feb. 2014, doi: 10.5539/ass.v10n5p44.
  • [7] A. Komaini, “Fundamental Motor Skills of Kindergarten Students (A Survey Study of the Influence of Financial Condition, Playing Activity, and Nutritional Status),” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 180, p. 12156, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/180/1/012156.
  • [8] S. Bakhtiar, R. Famelia, J. Goodway, and Y. Kiram, A Needs Assessment of The Fundamental Motor Skills of Urban and Rural Children in Indonesia. 2015.
  • [9] Y. Sharma, M. Jangra, S. Kaur, and A. Saxena, “Problems associated with Persisting Primitive Reflexes in healthy school going Children: A Scoping Review,” Crit. Rev. Phys. Rehabil. Med., vol. 37, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1615/CritRevPhysRehabilMed.2024055164.
  • [10] R. Blank, A. L. Barnett, J. Cairney, D. Green, A. Kirby, H. Polatajko, et al., “International clinical practice recommendations on the definition, diagnosis, assessment, intervention, and psychosocial aspects of developmental coordination disorder,” Dev. Med. Child Neurol., vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 242–285, 2019, doi: 10.1111/dmcn.14132.
  • [11] M. S. Rifki, R. Hanifah, E. Sepdanius, A. Komaini, H. P. Fajri, and D. T. Mario, “Development of a Volleyball Test Instrument Model,” Int. J. Hum. Mov. Sport. Sci., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 807–814, 2022, doi: 10.13189/saj.2022.100421.
  • [12] X. Li, “Design and Application of Children ’ s Entertainment Education Software in Preschool Education,” IJET, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 201–213, 2018.
  • [13] L. E. Robinson et al., “Motor Competence and its Effect on Positive Developmental Trajectories of Health,” Sport. Med., vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 1273–1284, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s40279-015-0351-6.
  • [14] R. Antunes, A. Bugge, A. K. Ersbøll, D. F. Stodden, and L. B. Andersen, “The longitudinal relationship between motor competence and measures of fatness and fitness from childhood into adolescence,” J. Pediatr. (Rio. J)., no. xx, pp. 1–7, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jped.2018.02.010.
  • [15] M. S. Rifki, F. Farma, A. Komaini, E. Sepdanius, Alimuddin, and N. Ayubi, “Development of Sit Up Measuring Tools Based on Arduino and Ultrasonic Sensors With Android Applications,” Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 182–189, 2022, doi: 10.3991/ijim.v16i08.30673.
  • [16] J. Connell et al., “The importance of content and face validity in instrument development: lessons learnt from service users when developing the Recovering Quality of Life measure (ReQoL).,” Qual. life Res. an Int. J. Qual. life Asp. Treat. care Rehabil., vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1893–1902, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1847-y.
  • [17] J. Henderson, J. Condell, J. Connolly, D. Kelly, and K. Curran, “Reliability and validity of clinically accessible smart glove technologies to measure joint range of motion,” Sensors, 2021, doi: 10.3390/s21051555.
  • [18] F. Sousa, I. Dos Reis, L. Ribeiro, L. Martins, and C. Gobatto, “Specific measurement of tethered running kinetics and its relationship to repeated sprint ability,” J. Hum. Kinet., 2015, doi: 10.1515/hukin-2015-0127.
  • [19] S. F. Del Toro, S. Santos-Cuadros, E. Olmeda, C. Álvarez-Caldas, V. Díaz, and J. L. San Román, “Is the Use of a Low-Cost sEMG Sensor Valid to Measure Muscle Fatigue?,” Sensors (Basel)., 2019, doi: 10.3390/s19143204.
  • [20] C.-I. Kim, D.-W. Han, and I.-H. Park, “Reliability and validity of the test of gross motor development-II in Korean preschool children: applying AHP.,” Res. Dev. Disabil., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 800–807, Apr. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.01.019.
  • [21] M. Ghayour Najafabadi et al., “Validity and reliability of the movement assessment battery second edition test in children with and without motor impairment: A prospective cohort study.,” Ann. Med. Surg., vol. 77, p. 103672, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103672.
  • [22] J. Taborri et al., “Sport biomechanics applications using inertial, force, and EMG sensors: A literature overview,” Appl. Bionics Biomech., 2020, doi: 10.1155/2020/2041549.
  • [23] R. T. Li, S. R. Kling, M. J. Salata, S. A. Cupp, J. Sheehan, and J. E. Voos, “Wearable Performance Devices in Sports Medicine,” Sports Health. 2016. doi: 10.1177/1941738115616917.
  • [24] V. Hadžić, A. Germič, and A. Filipčič, “Validity and reliability of a novel monitoring sensor for the quantification of the hitting load in tennis,” PLoS One, 2021, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255339.
  • [25] E. Vanegas, Y. Salazar, R. Igual, and I. Plaza, “Force-Sensitive Mat for Vertical Jump Measurement to Assess Lower Limb Strength: Validity and Reliability Study.,” JMIR mHealth uHealth, vol. 9, no. 4, p. e27336, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.2196/27336.
  • [26] A. Komaini, A. Syaputra, D. Syafrianto, Gusril, Syamsuar, and A. Novadri, “Beneficial effect of isometric device therapy in overcoming sprain injuries in the ankle due to sports using the arduino uno pro mini and load cell device design | Efecto beneficioso de la terapia con dispositivos isométricos en la superación de las lesio,” vol. 45, pp. 219–223, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v45i0.92369.