Psychometric Evaluation and Developmental Validity of the Turkish Child Oral and Motor Proficiency Scale (ChOMPS)

Öz

Aim: Oral motor skills are vital for feeding, swallowing, and speech, forming the basis for a child’s nutrition and communication. Accurate assessment of these skills is essential for identifying developmental delays and planning early interventions. However, standardized and psychometrically sound tools in Turkish are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability, validity, and developmental validity of the Turkish translation of the Children’s Oral and Motor Proficiency Scale (ChOMPS) for children aged children aged 6–72 months, providing a reliable tool for clinical and developmental use. Material and Methods: The ChOMPS was translated into Turkish using standardized forward–backward translation and expert review. Content validity was evaluated by ten pediatric rehabilitation specialists using the Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI) and modified kappa statistics. Psychometric analyses were conducted with 199 children (162 typically developing, 37 with cerebral palsy). Statistical analyses included Cronbach’s alpha, item–total correlations, test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients, ICC), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, known-group validity, and developmental validity based on the Ages and Stages Questionnaire–Turkish (ASQ-TR). Results: The Turkish ChOMPS demonstrated excellent psychometric properties. Internal consistency was high (α_total = 0.987; subscales = 0.979–0.983), and test–retest reliability confirmed temporal stability (ICC = 0.903–0.933). Content validity was excellent (Ave-CVI = 0.99; k* = 0.99). ROC analysis showed strong diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.90, cut-off ≤71, sensitivity = 97.3%, specificity = 72.2%). The scale differentiated children with cerebral palsy from typically developing peers (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.55–2.33). Across all ASQ-TR domains, typically developing children demonstrated significantly higher ChOMPS scores (p < 0.001). Effect sizes ranged from d = 1.72–2.26 for communication, d = 1.65–2.18 for gross motor, d = 1.07–1.28 for fine motor, d = 1.88–2.28 for problem-solving, and d = 1.79–1.98 for the personal–social domain. Conclusion: The Turkish ChOMPS is a reliable, valid, and developmentally sensitive tool for assessing oral motor and feeding proficiency in early childhood. It can be effectively used for clinical screening and developmental evaluation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ChOMPS
• oral motor development
• feeding evaluation
• reliability
• validity

Türkçe Çocuk Oral ve Motor Yeterlik Ölçeği’nin (CÖMYÖ) Psikometrik Değerlendirmesi ve Gelişimsel Geçerliliği

Öz

Amaç: Oral motor beceriler, beslenme, yutma ve konuşma için temel öneme sahiptir ve çocuğun beslenme ile iletişim becerilerinin temelini oluşturur. Bu becerilerin doğru değerlendirilmesi, gelişimsel gecikmelerin erken dönemde belirlenmesi ve uygun müdahalelerin planlanması açısından kritik öneme sahiptir. Ancak, erken çocukluk döneminde oral motor ve beslenme becerilerini değerlendirmeye yönelik Türkçe, psikometrik olarak güvenilir ve standart bir araç bulunmamaktadır. Bu nedenle, bu çalışma 6–72 ay arasındaki çocuklar için Çocuk Oral ve Motor Yeterlik Ölçeği’nin (ÇOMYÖ) Türkçe çevirisinin güvenirlik, geçerlik ve gelişimsel geçerliğini değerlendirerek klinik ve gelişimsel alanlarda kullanılabilecek güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı oluşturmayı amaçlamıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: ÇOMYÖ ölçeği ileri–geri çeviri ve uzman görüşü yöntemiyle Türkçeye çevrilmiştir. İçerik geçerliği, on pediatrik rehabilitasyon uzmanının değerlendirmeleriyle, Madde Düzeyinde İçerik Geçerlik İndeksi (I-CVI) ve düzeltilmiş kappa katsayısı (k*) kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Psikometrik analizler, 162’si tipik gelişen ve 37’si serebral palsili olmak üzere toplam 199 çocukla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Analizlerde Cronbach alfa, madde–toplam korelasyonları, test–tekrar test güvenirliği (ICC), ROC analizi, bilinen grup geçerliği ve Gelişimsel Tarama Testi–Türkçe (ASQ-TR) ile gelişimsel geçerlik değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Türkçe ÇOMYÖ mükemmel psikometrik özellikler göstermiştir. İç tutarlılık yüksek bulunmuştur (α_toplam = 0.987; alt ölçekler = 0.979–0.983) ve test–tekrar test güvenirliği zaman içi kararlılığı doğrulamıştır (ICC = 0.903–0.933). İçerik geçerliği mükemmeldir (Ave-CVI = 0.99; k* = 0.99). ROC analizi güçlü ayırt edicilik göstermiştir (AUC = 0.90, kesme noktası ≤71, duyarlılık = %97.3, özgüllük = %72.2). Ölçek, serebral palsili ve tipik gelişen çocukları anlamlı şekilde ayırt etmiştir (p < 0.001, Cohen d = 1.55–2.33) ve ASQ-TR alanlarına göre beklenen gelişimsel ilerlemeyi göstermiştir (p < 0.001). Sonuç: Türkçe ÇOMYÖ, erken çocukluk döneminde oral motor ve beslenme becerilerini değerlendirmek için güvenilir, geçerli ve gelişimsel olarak duyarlı bir ölçektir. Klinik tarama ve gelişimsel değerlendirme amaçlı olarak güvenle kullanılabilir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ChOMPS
• oral motor gelişim
• beslenme değerlendirmesi
• güvenirlik
• geçerlik

Kaynakça

1. Gabbard, C. (2013). Lifelong motor development. Pearson Education.
2. Kalhoff, H., Kersting, M., Sinningen, K., & Lücke, T. (2024). Development of eating skills in infants and toddlers from a neuropediatric perspective. Italian Journal of Pediatrics, 50(1), 110. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-024-01683-0
3. Sampallo-Pedroza, R. M., Cardona-López, L. F., & Ramírez-Gómez, K. E. (2014). Description of oral-motor development from birth to six years of age. Revista de la Facultad de Medicina, 62(4), 593-604. https://doi.org/10.15446/revfacmed.v62n4.45211
4. Hurtado-Almonacid, J., Reyes-Amigo, T., Yáñez-Sepúlveda, R., Cortés-Roco, G., Oñate-Navarrete, C., Olivares-Arancibia, J., & Páez-Herrera, J. (2024). Development of Basic Motor Skills from 3 to 10 Years of Age: Comparison by Sex and Age Range in Chilean Children. Children, 11(6), Article 715. DOI: 10.3390/children11060715.
5. Erol, E., Apaydın, U., Demir, N., & Elbasan, B. (2023). Investigation of the relationship between oral motor feeding development and gross motor development between preterm and term infants at 10-to 12-month postnatal age. Egyptian Pediatric Association Gazette, 71(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43054-023-00213-7
6. Esmaeili, L., Safaeyan, S., Saber-Moghadam, R., & Gholamiyan Arefi, M. (2024). Investigating feeding problems and oral motor skills in children with cerebral palsy. Iranian Rehabilitation Journal, 22(2), 205-216. https://doi.org/10.32598/irj.22.2.1656.2
7. Park, J., Pados, B. F., Thoyre, S. M., Estrem, H. H., & McComish, C. (2019). Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Child Oral and Motor Proficiency Scale. Journal of Early Intervention, 41(4), 283-299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815119841092
8. Barton, C., Bickell, M., & Fucile, S. (2018). Pediatric oral motor feeding assessments: A systematic review. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 38(2), 190-209. DOI:10.1080/01942638.2017.1290734.

9. Mahmoodabadi, G., Bavali-Gazik, A., Mouhebati, F., et al. (2024). The effectiveness of oral motor interventions on the weight gain, independent oral feeding, and length of hospital stay in hospitalized preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Science Reports, 7(9), e70015. https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.70015
10. Wilson, E., Simione, M., & Polley, L. (2021). Paediatric oral sensorimotor interventions for chewing dysfunction: A scoping review. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 56(6), 1316-1333. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12662
11. Pados, B. F., Thoyre, S. M., Park, J., Estrem, H. H., & McComish, C. (2019). Development and content validation of the Child Oral and Motor Proficiency Scale (ChOMPS). Journal of Early Intervention, 41(3), 220-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815119841091.
12. Behr, D. (2023). What to consider and look out for in questionnaire translation. GESIS Survey Guidelines. https://doi.org/10.15465/gesis-sg_en_043
13. ISPOR Task Force. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures. Value in Health, 8(2), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x
14. Cruchinho, P., López-Franco, M. D., Capelas, M. L., et al. (2024). Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of measurement instruments: A practical guideline for novice researchers. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 2701-2728. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S419714
15. Schuster, C., Hahn, S., & Ettlin, T. (2010). Objectively-assessed outcome measures: A translation and cross-cultural adaptation procedure applied to the Chedoke McMaster Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAHAI). BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 106. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-106
16. Almanasreh, E., Moles, R., & Chen, T. F. (2019). Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 15(2), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.066
17. Bodner, S. (2025). Translation and Validation of the Swedish Version of the Child Oral and Motor Proficiency Scale.
18. Kapçı, E. G., Küçüker, S., & Uslu, R. İ. (2015). EGE: Erken Gelişim Evreleri Envanteri (ASQ: Ages & Stages Questionnaires®) [Çeviri ve uyarlama]. Eğiten Kitap / Brookes Publishing.
19. White, M. (2022). Sample size in quantitative instrument validation studies: A systematic review of articles published in Scopus, 2021. Heliyon, 8(12). DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12223
20. Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., & Erikson, P. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value in health, 8(2), 94-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x
21. Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross‐cultural health care research: a clear and user‐friendly guideline. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 17(2), 268-274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
22. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
23. Zijlmans, E. A., Tijmstra, J., van der Ark, L. A., & Sijtsma, K. (2018). Item-score reliability in empirical-data sets and its relationship with other item indices. Educational and psychological measurement, 78(6), 998-1020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164417728358
24. Rönkkö, M., & Cho, E. (2022). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organizational research methods, 25(1), 6-14 https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120968614
25. Jewsbury, P. A. (2019). Diagnostic test score validation with a fallible criterion. Applied Psychological Measurement, 43(8), 579-596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621618817785
26. Indu, P. V., Vidhukumar, K., Chacko, D., et al. (2025). Criterion validity, construct validity, and factor analysis: An introductory overview. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 67(9), 916-921. https://doi.org/10.4103/indianjpsychiatry_911_25
27. Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., ... & De Vet, H. C. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC medical research methodology, 10(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-22
28. Aldridge, V. K., Dovey, T. M., & Wade, A. (2017). Assessing test-retest reliability of psychological measures: Persistent methodological problems. European Psychologist, 22(4), 207. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000298
29. McCrae, R. R., Kurtz, J. E., Yamagata, S., & Terracciano, A. (2011). Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and social psychology review, 15(1), 28-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310366253
30. Parkes, J., Hill, N. A. N., Platt, M. J., & Donnelly, C. (2010). Oromotor dysfunction and communication impairments in children with cerebral palsy: a register study. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 52(12),1113-1119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14698749.2010.03765.x