Cross-cultural analysis of the motor development of Brazilian, Greek and Canadian infants assessed with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the motor development of infants from three population samples (Brazil, Canada and Greece), to investigate differences in the percentile curves of motor development in these samples, and to investigate the prevalence of motor delays in Brazilian children. METHODS: Observational, descriptive and cross-sectional study with 795 Brazilian infants from zero to 18 months of age, assessed by the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) at day care centers, nurseries, basic health units and at home. The Brazilian infants' motor scores were compared to the results of two population samples from Greece (424 infants) and Canada (2,400 infants). Descriptive statistics was used, with one-sample t-test and binomial tests, being significant p≤0.05. RESULTS: 65.4% of Brazilian children showed typical motor development, although with lower mean scores. In the beginning of the second year of life, the differences in the motor development among Brazilian, Canadian and Greek infants were milder; at 15 months of age, the motor development became similar in the three groups. A non-linear motor development trend was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The lowest motor percentiles of the Brazilian sample emphasized the need for national norms in order to correctly categorize the infant motor development. The different ways of motor development may be a consequence of cultural differences in infant care.

Cross‐cultural validity of standardized motor development screening and assessment tools: a systematic review

“…[35][36][37] Higher mean scores were only observed in Brazilian infants as newborn infants 35 and at 18 months of age. [35][36][37] Higher mean scores were only observed in Brazilian infants as newborn infants 35 and at 18 months of age.…”

“…36 In a sample of 70 Brazilian infants aged 0 to 6 months, 87% scored at or below the 50th centile, with 41% of infants scoring at the 25th centile. 36 The 10th centile cut-off point for identifying infants with motor delay at 4 months 44 may not be appropriate for Brazilian infants because significant differences were found between the AIMS normative sample and Brazilian infants at the 10th centile at 4 months. 36 The 10th centile cut-off point for identifying infants with motor delay at 4 months 44 may not be appropriate for Brazilian infants because significant differences were found between the AIMS normative sample and Brazilian infants at the 10th centile at 4 months.…”

“…36 The 10th centile cut-off point for identifying infants with motor delay at 4 months 44 may not be appropriate for Brazilian infants because significant differences were found between the AIMS normative sample and Brazilian infants at the 10th centile at 4 months. 39 The results from Gontijo et al, 35 Lopes et al, 38 and Saccani and Valentini 36,37 suggest that the motor development of Brazilian infants differs from the AIMS normative sample. Their version was shown to have language clarity and high internal consistency, although limited predictive validity.…”

“…The applicability and/or validity of the AIMS were studied in infants from South America, [35][36][37][38][39] Europe, 36,[40][41][42][43] and Asia. 27 A total of 3452 children, age range 0 to 19 months, participated in the seven studies.…”

Frequência semanal de um programa de intervenção motora para bebês de berçário

“…Other variables can also influence that environment, such as the educational level of the parents, family income, family ties with the child 7,8 , educators, and health professionals 9 . Often, the professional is required to supply for possible experience faults and opportunities weaknesses suffered by children in their context, through interventional programs [10][11][12] .…”