Movement skill assessment in children with profound multiple disabilities: a psychometric analysis of the Top Down Motor Milestone Test

Putten, Annette van der; Vlaskamp, Carla; Reynders, Koop; Nakken, Han

doi:10.1191/0269215505cr862oa

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…outcomes research with children functioning at GMFCS levels IV and V and provided information on the tools psychometric properties and clinical utility. The tools include the 10-meter (10-m) walk test [26,27], 10-minute (10-min) walk test [27], Directional Mobility Assessment (DMA) [24,25], Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM) [28], Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) [29], Physical Abilities and Mobility Scale (PAMS) [30], School Function Assessment (SFA)-Travel subscale [31], Step/leg movement count [16,20,21,32], Step length and velocity footprint analysis [24,25], Top Down Motor Milestone Test (TDMMT) [33], Videoing indices of happiness [19,21], and the Functional Independence Measure for children (Wee FIM) [34,35].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring Outcomes for Children with Cerebral Palsy Who Use Gait Trainers

Livingstone

Paleg

2016

Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gait trainers are walking devices that provide additional trunk and pelvic support. The primary population of children using gait trainers includes children with cerebral palsy (CP) functioning at Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels IV and V. A recent systematic review found that evidence supporting the effectiveness of gait trainer interventions for children was primarily descriptive and insufficient to draw firm conclusions. A major limitation identified was the lack of valid, sensitive and reliable tools for measuring change in body structure and function, activity and participation outcomes. Twelve different clinical tools were identified in the systematic review and in this paper we review and discuss the evidence supporting their reliability, validity and clinical utility for use with children using gait trainers. We also describe seven additional clinical measurement tools that may be useful with this intervention and population. The Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) rated highest across all areas at this time. Individualized outcome measures, such as the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Goal Attainment Scaling and measuring user satisfaction with tools, such as the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology, show potential for gait trainer outcomes research. Spatiotemporal measures appear to be less useful than functional measures with this intervention and population. All tools would benefit from further development for use with children with CP functioning at GMFCS levels IV and V.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the expanded search, methodological studies providing further information on the Top Down Motor Milestone Test [33,36], use of the 10-m walk test with children with CP GMFCS levels I-III [37,38], and the PAMS [39] were identified. Only one gait trainer intervention study not included in the systematic review was identified [40].…”

Section: Tool Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Outcomes for Children with Cerebral Palsy Who Use Gait Trainers

Livingstone

Paleg

2016

Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As for cognitive and developmental assessment, instruments like the Behavioural Assessment Battery (Kiernan & Jones, 1982) and the Ordinal Scales of Psychological development (Užgiris & Hunt, 1975) are still widely used, and revised versions of these instruments have led to new instruments such as the Behavioral Appraisal Scales (Vlaskamp, Van der Meulen, & Zijlstra, 2002). Several instruments regarding motor and sensory functioning are available, such as the Top Down Motor Milestone Test (van der Putten et al., 2005). Methods of assessment of adaptive behavior skills are more or less limited to communicative skills.…”

Section: Assessment Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Need for a Taxonomy for Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities

Nakken

Vlaskamp

2007

Policy Practice Intel Disabi

361

396

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is extensive discussion on the quality of education and support for individuals with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD) in relation to inclusion and full citizenship. The discussions are complicated because of differences or lack of clarity in the description of the variations and types of PIMD. A description of the core group is offered, but it is also argued that there cannot be an absolute separation of this specific target group from other adjoining groups. The authors propose a multi‐axial model‐based taxonomy that distinguishes visual and/or auditory impairments, other physical impairments, and mental health problems, in addition to the two key defining characteristics (limited intellect and compromised physical functions). The authors also propose that assessment of people with PIMD be structured toward ascertainment of diagnostic objectives (e.g., confirming or disconfirming the person’s level of intellectual disability) and the determination of a starting point and direction for support of the individual. They conclude that, to prevent misunderstanding in comparison of results of educational programs and interventions, it is recommended that workers describe individuals (or subgroups) with PIMD in publications in detail—using operational definitions. In addition, they propose that an international effort be undertaken to develop and use generally agreed assessment procedures.

show abstract

“…These measures are reported to have good test-retest reliability for children with disabilities. The only multiple baseline study 31 used the Top Down Motor Milestone Test, with modifications 40 and reports that it is a useful evaluative tool for measuring functional motor outcomes in children with severe and profound disabilities. Outcomes were divided into ICF 11,12 components with details shown in Table 2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%