The present study investigated whether and which motor screenings are available for children of kindergarten age. By searching in four different languages (German, English, French, Spanish), 21 procedures were found that are described as screening. In the case of screening batteries that are intended to capture the whole developmental stage of the child, only the test part that concerns motor development was singled out for analysis. Use of the term “screening“: Reichenbach [49] refers to the procedure “Die Abenteuer der kleinen Hexe” [40] as screening, but this term does not appear in the manual of the tests. The DDST is defined as a screening by the authors already in the naming. Here, reference is made to the fact that a screening can be learned, carried out and evaluated quickly and easily, thus revealing a developmental delay [34]. This corresponds to the criterion of simplicity according to Stangler et al. [13]. In the procedure “Diagnostik mit Pfiffigunde” one finds the concept of screening [46]. However, this procedure describes, among other things, that the extent, strength and profile of the disorder are determined, as well as an age-appropriate development of gross and fine motor skills and the state of lateral development [46]. However, a screening only has the task of roughly deciding between “normal” and “not normal” [9]. In DITKA, the authors say that the six core tasks can give a rough overview in the sense of a screening test [35], which corresponds to the criterion of classification according to Esser and Petermann [9]. In the case of BBK 3-6, Frey et al. [29] point out that this is a screening procedure that provides an insight into strengths and weaknesses and where further, more detailed diagnostics with targeted support based on this are recommended. This is fully in line with the filtering function of screenings in the sequential diagnostic strategy [7,8,11). Franzen and Berg [50] describe NEPSY-II in its previous version as a screening. Korkman et al. [45] use this term too in this previous version. MobiScreen 4-6 [43] and MOT 4-8 Screen [44] already indicate in their names that they are screenings. Both have been shown to fulfil the required criteria to a reasonable degree and can be described as screening. The authors of the BIKO 3-6 describe it as a developmental screening [30]. This also fulfils the required criteria to be considered a screening, but to a lesser extent than the two aforementioned methods. KMS 3-6 by Bös et al. [39] is declared as a screening but there do not exist the criteria of diagnostic validity. Verification of the psychometric properties: If one looks at the economy, only a few procedures indicate a low time and personnel requirement [30,33-35,43-45,48]. In this context, if one looks at the implementation time of the different procedures, it is noticeable that most of them take a lot of time, as does the organisation, often in small groups or individual situations. This contradicts the guidelines of Lienert and Raatz [51] that a screening should be quick and easy to carry out with little effort. Many methods have very good to excellent values for the space required and the choice of equipment [29,31-33,35,40,42-44,47], which is also of great importance for the users (51). It is noticeable that there is no information on the main psychometric properties for three procedures [35,38,40], and only partial information for two procedures, which is also an indispensable prerequisite for screenings [52]. Only nine procedures were tested for objectivity, reliability and validity [29,30,32,34,41,43-45,48]. For all other procedures currently in use, this information should be provided in studies. The diagnostic validity required by Marx and Lenhard [14], by which children are to be classified as “normal” and “not normal”, is lacking in almost all procedures. Only ten screenings were tested for their diagnostic quality and provide information on sensitivity and specificity or the AUC [28,3034,37,43,44,48]. Ten methods provide information on the determination of a cut-off value [28-30,32,33,37,43-45,48]. However, the approach is very different: The cut-off value for BDI-2 [28] is 1.5 standard deviations and has an excellent sensitivity. In the BIKO 3-6 [30], the 16th percentile is described as the cut-off value, as it is specified, for example, in the UEMF guidelines [53]. In this procedure, the cut-off value also has an excellent sensitivity. The McCarthy ST [42] gives the 10th percentile for this, but does not give any information on sensitivity. The MOT 4-8 Screen [44] relies on a motor quotient of less than 85 as a cut-off value with a very good sensitivity. Only two methods [32,43] determine the optimal cut-off value via an ROC analysis and both also achieve an excellent sensitivity and follow the indications of Pospeschill [17] to achieve an optimal balance between sensitivity and specificity. The TGMD-3 [48] provides a cut-off value in the form of a raw value, which, however, apparently shows a very good sensitivity. In addition, the method has information on the AUC and here follows the information of Reineking and Schröder [18]. Only those methods for which information on diagnostic quality is found in addition to the main quality criteria should continue to be referred to as screening. In summary, BRIGANCE [32], DDST [34], MobiScreen 4-6 [43], MOT 4-8 Screen [44] and TGMD-3 [48] provide information on all the quality criteria required for screening; the procedures hardly differ from each other in the quality of their psychometric properties and can all be rated in the very good to excellent range. They differ only in their economy and in the underlying construct.