Early gross motor development of preterm infants according to the Alberta Infant Motor Scale

Haastert, Ingrid C. van; Vries, Linda S. de; Helders, Paul J. M.; Jongmans, Marian J.

doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2006.07.025

Cited by 167 publications

(144 citation statements)

References 39 publications

(64 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…12 GMs have the best combination of sensitivity and specificity for predicting CP in the early months, whereas the AIMS and NSMDA are the best predictors of atypical motor development in the later months. The TIMP is the only tool to demonstrate adequate evaluative validity, and along with the AIMS has demonstrated the best reliability.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When using norm-referenced assessments it is important to consider the characteristics of the reference population, as motor development may vary across different social and ethnic populations. 12 Criterion-referenced tests have criteria or a minimum competence that must be reached to score an item or pass the test. The criterion test contrasts the child's performance with the test content rather than a population.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review of the clinimetric properties of neuromotor assessments for preterm infants during the first year of life

Spittle

Doyle

Boyd

2008

Develop Med Child Neuro

284

292

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review evaluates assessments used to discriminate, predict, or evaluate the motor development of preterm infants during the first year of life. Eighteen assessments were identified; nine met the inclusion criteria. The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), Bayley Scale of Infant and Toddler Development ‐ Version III, Peabody Developmental Motor Scales ‐ Version 2, Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP), and Toddler and Infant Motor Examination have good discriminative validity when examined in large populations. The AIMS, Prechtl's Assessment of General Movements (GMs), Neuro Sensory Motor Development Assessment (NSMDA), and TIMP were designed for preterm infants and are able to detect more subtle changes in movement quality. The best predictive assessment tools are age dependent: GMs, the Movement Assessment of Infants, and TIMP are strongest in early infancy (age 4mo or less) and the AIMS and NSMDA are better at older ages (8‐12mo). The TIMP is the only tool that has demonstrated a difference between groups in response to intervention in two randomized controlled trials. The AIMS, TIMP, and GMs demonstrated the highest levels of overall reliability (interrater and intrarater intraclass correlation coefficient or κ>0.85). Selection of motor assessment tools during the first year of life for infants born preterm will depend on the intended purpose of their use for discrimination, prediction, and/or evaluation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the clinimetric properties of neuromotor assessments for preterm infants during the first year of life

Spittle

Doyle

Boyd

2008

Develop Med Child Neuro

284

292

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Preterm newborns with gestational age below 30 weeks and birth weight less than 1500 g constitute a population at high risk of showing deficits in neurodevelopment in case of clinical complications. 18 In our study, most newborns had mean gestational age at birth greater than 32 weeks and birth weight greater than 1500 g; in addition, they did not have intracranial hemorrhage, chronic lung disease or convulsive syndrome. Therefore, the absence of these biological risk factors certainly contributed to the motor performance within the average.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 46%

“…16 Comparative studies with preterm and term newborns demonstrated that there are differences in motor performance between them, and also among the preterm themselves, depending on their clinical status and gestational age. 15,17 Van Haastert et al, 18 after evaluating 800 preterm newborns with 1 to 18 months of corrected age assessed based on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale, observed that they showed a different evolution of gross motor development compared to term newborns, suggesting that the scales should be adapted according to gestational age at birth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of the motor performance of newborns in a neonatal unit of tertiary level

Giachetta

Nicolau

Juliani³

et al. 2016

Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results:The age groups of 34-35 and 36-37 weeks showed on average TIMP scores similar to the reference values (p>0.05), while in the age groups of 38-39 weeks and 40-41 weeks TIMP scores were statistically lower than the reference values (p<0.001 and p=0.018, respectively). The 34-35 and 36-37 week groups were rated as average, while the 38-39 and 40-41 week groups were defined as low average. Classifications below average and very below average were not observed. Conclusion:The newborns showed average scores compared to the TIMP reference values; however, there were two groups whose performances were within the low average. There was no significant difference in motor performance of newborns in the age groups of 38-39 and 40-41 weeks. This behavior suggests that the sample studied has special features that possibly negatively influenced their motor performance. The results showed that the TIMP is a very useful tool and can be used safely in tertiary neonatal units.

show abstract

“…The Alberta Infant Motor Scale 1) (AIMS) is a standardized assessment tool of motor development 15,16) . The AIMS has been found to be an excellent motor tool [17][18][19][20][21] . The rater can complete the assessment in 20 to 30 minutes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Longitudinal Observation of Healthy Children's Motor Development Using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. [Purpose] To clarify the motor development of healthy infants, we conducted a longitudinal observation survey of healthy Japanese infants.[Subjects] Healthy infants participated in this study (9 males and 5 females age 5-13 months old, birth weight: 2, 474-3, 964 g). Infants belonged to three daycare centers.[Method] An examiner visited the infants at a daycare center monthly, and examined their motor development using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS).[Results] Eleven infants, out of 14, showed higher AIMS than the average at some ages in months and lower AIMS than the average at some ages.[Conclusion] The longitudinal survey confirmed that infants have certain periods when they become capable of new movements and other periods when their development stagnates. It also confirmed that the supine sleep position has no influence on infants' motor development acquisition. This suggests that the impact of physiological motor development must be considered when infants receiving PT become capable of new movement.

show abstract

Early gross motor development of preterm infants according to the Alberta Infant Motor Scale

Cited by 167 publications

References 39 publications

A systematic review of the clinimetric properties of neuromotor assessments for preterm infants during the first year of life

A systematic review of the clinimetric properties of neuromotor assessments for preterm infants during the first year of life

Characterization of the motor performance of newborns in a neonatal unit of tertiary level

Longitudinal Observation of Healthy Children's Motor Development Using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About