The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) is a diagnostic tool for the assessment of the motor performance of infants from the time of birth, to the period of independent walking (0–18 months). This study aims to derive a Polish version of the AIMS through its cultural adaptation and validation. The study included 145 infants aged 0–18 months, who were divided into four further age groups: 0–3 months, 4–7 months, 8–11 months, and older than 12 months. The validation was based on an analysis of intrarater and interrater reliability values, as well as concurrent validity, using the gross motor scale of Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2). The total Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for intrarater reliability was 0.99 (ICC range in positions was 0.87–0.99, in subgroups was 0.91–0.99), while in particular positions, the ICC ranges were as follows: prone 0.97–0.99, supine 0.94–0.99, sitting 0.95–0.99, and standing: 0.63–0.99. The total ICC for interrater reliability was 0.99 (ICC range in positions was 0.98–0.99, in subgroups was 0.91–0.99), while in particular positions, the ICC ranges were as follows: prone 0.95–0.99, supine 0.93–0.96, sitting 0.93–0.98, standing 0.91–0.98. Only the standing position was analyzed for the subgroup of participants over 12 months old. The Spearman correlation between the Polish version of the AIMS and the gross motor scale of PDMS-2 was significant in the total population (r = 0.97, p < 0.0001) and in subgroups (r = 0.79–0.85, p < 0.0001). The results of our study confirm that the Polish version of the AIMS is reliable for infants aged 0–18 months and can be applied to this population for clinical and scientific purposes.Trial RegistryClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05264064, URL https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ct2/show/NCT05264064.

According to the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the surveillance of motor development should accompany systematic appointments with medical professionals in infancy and early childhood. One of the standardized tools for evaluating motor development is the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). This paper aims to present assumptions and psychometric properties of the AIMS, the methodology of assessment of an infant's performance with the AIMS, and research on the validation and standardization of the AIMS as well as the use of the scale as an outcome measure. We conducted a non-systematic literature review using three electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Embase (from June 1992 to February 2022). We included original research with a full-text manuscript in English. No geographical restrictions were applied. The search terms “alberta infant motor scale” AND “reliability” OR “validity” and “alberta infant motor scale” AND “norms” OR “reference” OR “standardization” were used for literature review on the validation and standardization of the AIMS in other non-Canadian populations. This narrative review also focuses on how the AIMS is applied as an outcome measure in research by presenting studies on the AIMS conducted over the last decade. Our review found that the AIMS is widely used for both research and clinical purposes. The AIMS has been used as an outcome measure in both interventional and observational studies conducted on both neurotypical infants and those with conditions affecting motor development. The advantages of the scale are its infant-friendliness, time duration of the examination, and relative ease of application for an examiner. The scale has been validated and standardized in many countries.

Background The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) is a standardized tool for assessing gross motor development from birth through independent walking (0–18 months). The AIMS was developed, validated and standardized in the Canadian population. Results of previous studies on the standardization of the AIMS have discerned differences in some samples in comparison with Canadian norms. This study aimed to establish reference values of the AIMS for the Polish population and compare them to Canadian norms. Methods The research involved 431 infants (219 girls, 212 boys, aged 0-<19 months), divided into nineteen age groups. The translated into Polish and validated version of the AIMS was used. The mean AIMS total scores and percentiles for every age group were calculated and compared with the Canadian reference values. Raw total AIMS scores were converted to 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles. A one sample t-test was used to compare the AIMS total scores between Polish and Canadian infants (p-value < 0.05). A binomial test was performed to compare percentiles (p-value < 0.05). Results The mean AIMS total scores in the Polish population were significantly lower in the seven age groups: 0-<1, 1-<2, 4-<5, 5-<6, 6-<7, 13-<14, and 15-<16 months of age (with small to large effect size). A few significant differences were found in the comparison of percentile ranks, mostly in the 75th percentile. Conclusion Our study provides the norms for the Polish AIMS version. According to differences in the mean AIMS total scores and percentiles, the original Canadian reference values are not congruent for Polish infants. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05264064. URL https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05264064. Date of registration: 03/03/2022.