Comparative validity between the Canadian and the Dutch norms of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale in a preterm population.
Saved in:
| Title: | Comparative validity between the Canadian and the Dutch norms of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale in a preterm population. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Gautier, Clara, Alexandre, Marie, Zaczek, Sophie, Mostaert, Anne, Legros, Ludovic |
| Source: | Child: Care, Health & Development. Jan2023, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p36-43. 8p. 2 Charts, 2 Graphs. |
| Subjects: | Reference values, Research methodology evaluation, Movement disorders, Developmental disabilities, Population geography, Comparative studies, Pearson correlation (Statistics), Psychometrics, Descriptive statistics, Predictive validity, Sensitivity & specificity (Statistics), Ethnic groups, Evaluation, Children |
| Geographic Terms: | Belgium, Netherlands, Canada |
| Abstract: | Background: Prematurity remains a leading cause of motor developmental delays. The Alberta Infant Motor Scales (AIMS) is a useful tool to easily assess motor development. However, during the last decade, cross‐cultural differences have been identified regarding the original AIMS norms. Therefore, the aim of this study is twofold: confirm the validity of the AIMS in a preterm population and compare the new Dutch AIMS norms to the original Canadian ones in our Belgian population. Method: Ninety‐six preterm infants were assessed simultaneously on the AIMS and on the Bayley Scales of Infant‐Toddler Development (Bayley‐III) at age 9–14 months. Concurrent validity was evaluated by correlation analysis. Among these, 89 were assessed on the AIMS at age 3–6 months. Clinimetric properties of both AIMS norms were calculated to compare their ability to detect a motor delay on the Bayley‐III at age 9–14 months. Result: Pearson's coefficient showed an excellent level of correlation between the two scales (r = 0.91). At age 3–6 months, only the 10th Canadian centile showed acceptable properties to predict a significant motor delay. At age 9–14 months, the 5th centile of both norms showed good properties to diagnose a significant motor delay, while only the Canadian norms seems to be sensitive enough to diagnose a mild motor delay. Conclusion: The new Dutch norms seem to be less sensitive but more specific than the Canadian ones and therefore require adapted cut‐offs to diagnose motor developmental delays in a preterm population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Child: Care, Health & Development is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background: Prematurity remains a leading cause of motor developmental delays. The Alberta Infant Motor Scales (AIMS) is a useful tool to easily assess motor development. However, during the last decade, cross‐cultural differences have been identified regarding the original AIMS norms. Therefore, the aim of this study is twofold: confirm the validity of the AIMS in a preterm population and compare the new Dutch AIMS norms to the original Canadian ones in our Belgian population. Method: Ninety‐six preterm infants were assessed simultaneously on the AIMS and on the Bayley Scales of Infant‐Toddler Development (Bayley‐III) at age 9–14 months. Concurrent validity was evaluated by correlation analysis. Among these, 89 were assessed on the AIMS at age 3–6 months. Clinimetric properties of both AIMS norms were calculated to compare their ability to detect a motor delay on the Bayley‐III at age 9–14 months. Result: Pearson's coefficient showed an excellent level of correlation between the two scales (r = 0.91). At age 3–6 months, only the 10th Canadian centile showed acceptable properties to predict a significant motor delay. At age 9–14 months, the 5th centile of both norms showed good properties to diagnose a significant motor delay, while only the Canadian norms seems to be sensitive enough to diagnose a mild motor delay. Conclusion: The new Dutch norms seem to be less sensitive but more specific than the Canadian ones and therefore require adapted cut‐offs to diagnose motor developmental delays in a preterm population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 03051862 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/cch.13002 |
