Motor impairments in pediatric, adolescent and young adult (AYA) oncology constitute a multidimensional construct encompassing muscle weakness, range of motion limitations, postural alterations, and deficits in gross and fine motor performance. Despite the widespread use of diverse assessment tools, the measurement landscape remains conceptually fragmented, with inconsistencies in measurement level, psychometric support, and clinical interpretability. This study moves beyond descriptive reporting by proposing an author-developed three-layer conceptual analytical framework to identify structural limitations in motor outcome measurement. A structured analytical literature review was conducted to map motor assessment tools used in pediatric and AYA oncology. Instruments were categorized into four domains: muscle strength, range of motion and flexibility, posture, and motor performance batteries and evaluated across three dimensions: measurement level (impairment and activity), oncology-specific psychometric evidence, and clinical sensitivity and generalizability across diagnoses and treatment phases. A wide range of instruments is employed, including dynamometry, repetition-based tests, functional field tests, and composite motor batteries such as BOT-2, m-ABC, GMFM-ALL, and MOON. However, substantial conceptual overlap exists between impairment-level and activity-level measures. Most tools lack oncology-specific validation, and key interpretability metrics, including minimal detectable change and clinically meaningful change thresholds, remain largely undefined. Evidence regarding sensitivity across diagnostic groups and treatment phases is also limited. The primary limitation of the field lies not in the availability of tools, but in the absence of an integrated measurement architecture. The proposed framework should be interpreted as a conceptual basis for developing structurally aligned, psychometrically robust, and clinically interpretable motor outcome assessment strategies in pediatric and AYA oncology.