Pediatric normative data for the Complete Minnesota Dexterity Test.

Only typically developing children took part. Any child with a known physical, cognitive or emotional condition was excluded, so these norms may not fit the children on your caseload who have other health conditions. The study did not collect socioeconomic status, race or ethnicity, so it is unclear how diverse the sample really was. Children volunteered through hospital email lists, flyers and community contacts, so those who took part may differ in dexterity from the general pediatric population. Reliability was best for children whose performance was not at the extremes, so scores may be less dependable for the fastest or slowest children. Recruitment took nearly ten years and was held back for almost two of them by COVID-19. Testing was done sitting and with reworded instructions, which differs from the published manual, and no pediatric norms existed before to check these against. The faster second attempt may reflect a learning effect, which the authors say matters if you use the CMDT to compare a child before and after treatment.

The authors declare they have no competing financial interests. The text supplied does not include a funding statement.

These norms were built only on typically developing children. Any child with a known physical, cognitive or emotional condition was excluded, so do not use them to judge a child with a disability. A faster second attempt is also not treatment progress; the authors attribute the 3.3 to 8.8 second improvement between trials to a possible learning effect.