Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) Performance of Early-Term Greek Infants: The Impact of Shorter Gestation on Gross Motor Development among “Term-Born” Infants

Syrengelas, D.; Nikaina, Eirini; Kleisiouni, Paraskevi; Siahanidou, Tania

doi:10.3390/children9020270

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three studies examining the association between growth-related variables and FMS, of which one was rated as having high methodological quality, found no association in children aged <1 year (de Paiva et al, 2010;Jensen et al, 2019;Syrengelas et al, 2022), one study found a positive association (Siziba et al, 2018), and one study found a negative association (Nahar et al, 2019). Both studies examining the association between growth-related variables and FMS in children aged 1-2 years found no association (Ribe et al, 2018;.…”

Section: Correlates Of Early Childhood Motor Skillsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In children aged <1 year, five studies, of which one study was rated as having high methodological quality, found a positive association between age and FMS (Makela et al, 2018;Piallini et al, 2016;Righetto Greco et al, 2019;Siziba et al, 2018;Syrengelas et al, 2022), and two studies found no association (Majnemer & Barr, 2005;Nahar et al, 2019). In children aged 1-2 years, one study rated as having high methodological quality found a positive association between age and FMS (Costa et al, 2021), and one study found a negative association .…”

Section: Correlates Of Early Childhood Motor Skillsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In children aged <1 year, two high-quality studies found no association between sex and FMS in children, and one high-quality study found that boys had lower FMS scores than girls (Pinheiro et al, 2014;Syrengelas et al, 2014Syrengelas et al, , 2022. In children aged 1-2 years, two high-quality studies found no significant association between sex and FMS (Costa et al, 2021;Koutra et al, 2012).…”

Section: Biological Correlatesmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Correlates of Fundamental Motor Skills in the Early Years (0–4 Years): A Systematic Review

Veldman,

Gubbels,

Singh

et al. 2024

Journal of Motor Learning and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This systematic review aims to summarize evidence on correlates of fundamental motor skills in typically developing children aged 0–4 years. Methods: A literature search (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus) was performed from 2000 till 23 May 2022. Inclusion criteria was cross-sectional and prospective studies examining associations between a potential correlate and fundamental motor skills in typically developing, apparently healthy children aged 0–4 years. Two independent reviewers performed screening and methodological quality assessment. Results: Eighty-three studies met eligibility criteria and were included. Thirteen studies were of high methodological quality. In children aged <1 year, we found no evidence for family income, breastfeeding-related, sleep-related, home environment, and socioeconomic variables. In children aged 1–2 years, we found no evidence for sex, growth-related variables, singleton birth, and family income. In children aged 2–4 years, we found no evidence for screen behavior, toxicity, parental education, family income, socioeconomic variables, and maternal depression/anxiety and moderate evidence for a positive association with early childhood education and care setting type. For other examined correlates, we found insufficient evidence (inconsistent findings or only one study available). Conclusions: We found insufficient evidence for over half of examined potential correlates of fundamental motor skills. We recommend investing in better research methodologies and improved reporting.

show abstract

Section: Correlates Of Early Childhood Motor Skillsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Correlates Of Early Childhood Motor Skillsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Biological Correlatesmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Correlates of Fundamental Motor Skills in the Early Years (0–4 Years): A Systematic Review

Veldman,

Gubbels,

Singh

et al. 2024

Journal of Motor Learning and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The AIMS positional scores and total scores have been used to compare motor development between preterm and full-term infants, including their reliability [13]. As infants motor development features could vary, how well they did each item should be checked for an accurate AIMS measurement and evaluation [14]. Weight-bearing, posture, and antigravity movement are key descriptors of motor skills used in the AIMS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor Development Comparison between Preterm and Full-Term Infants Using Alberta Infant Motor Scale

Lim

2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) was developed to evaluate the motor development of infants up to 18 months of age. We studied 252 infants in three groups (105 healthy preterm infants (HPI), 50 preterm infants with brain injury (PIBI), and 97 healthy full-term infants (HFI) under 18 months, corrected age (CoA)) using AIMS. No significant differences were found among HPI, PIBI, and HFI in infants less than 3 months old, yet significant differences were noted in positional scores (p < 0.05) and total scores for those four to six months of age and seven to nine months of age. A significant difference was also found in standing items for infants over 10 months (p < 0.05). After four months, there was a difference in motor development between preterm (with and without brain injury) and full-term infants. In particular, there was a significant difference in motor development between HPI and HFI and between PIBI and HFI at four to nine months, when motor skills developed explosively (p < 0.05). After four months, motor developmental delays (10th ≥) were observed in HPI and PIBI at rates of 26% and 45.8%, respectively. Midline supine development, a representative indicator of early motor development, was slower even in healthy preterm infants than in full-term infants. AIMS has a good resolution to discriminate preterm infants who are showing insufficient motor development from 4 months to 9 months.

show abstract

Development of Movement and Postural Patterns in Full-Term Infants Who Are at Low Risk in Belgium, India, Norway, and the United States

Boswell,

Adde,

Fjørtoft

et al. 2024

Physical Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The objective of this study was to investigate the influences on motor development in infants who are at low risk from Belgium, India, Norway, and the United States (US) using the General Movement Assessment (GMA) at 10–16 weeks post-term age. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of prospectively enrolled full-term infants at low risk (n = 186). Certified GMA observers rated the fidgety movements, quality of the movement patterns, age-adequacy of the movement repertoire, postural patterns, movement character, and overall Motor Optimality Score - Revised (MOS-R). Scores were evaluated for associations with sex, birth weight category, gestational age, post-term age at video, and country. Results The majority of infants had normal fidgety movements (179/186, 96.2%). This did not vary by sex, birth weight, gestational age, post-term age at video, or country. All infants showed normal>atypical movement patterns. Variability was seen for age adequacy (optimal: 137/183, 74.9%), postural patterns (normal>atypical: 164/183, 89.6%), and smooth/ fluent movement character (138/183, 75.4%). Gestational age and post-term age at video were associated with atypical postural patterns but in multivariable regression, only younger post-term age retained significance (OR 2.94, 95% CI: 1.05–8.24). Lack of age adequacy was associated with post-term age (OR 13.15, 95% CI: 4.36–39.72), and country (compared with Norway; Belgium OR 3.38 95% CI:12.4–9.22; India OR 3.16, 95% CI:1.01–9.87: US not significant). Infants from India also showed lower rates of an optimal MOS-R (25–28) than infants from Norway. Conclusions The normality and temporal organization of fidgety movements did not differ by sex, birth weight, post-term age, or country, suggesting that the fidgety movements are free of cultural and environmental influences. The majority of full-term infants who were healthy in this cohort showed normal scores for all aspects of motor development tested using the MOS-R. Differences in age adequacy and MOS-R by country warrant investigation with larger cohorts and longitudinal follow up. Impact Statement Understanding variations in typical motor development is essential to interpreting patterns of movement and posture in infants at risk for atypical development. Using the framework of Prechtl’s General Movements Assessment, this study showed that the development of movement and posture in healthy infants were affected by age and country of birth, but the development of the fidgety movements appeared to be free of these influences. Local norms may be needed to interpret the Motor Optimality Score-Revised in all populations but further research on this topic is needed.

show abstract

Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) Performance of Early-Term Greek Infants: The Impact of Shorter Gestation on Gross Motor Development among “Term-Born” Infants

Cited by 4 publications

References 31 publications

Correlates of Fundamental Motor Skills in the Early Years (0–4 Years): A Systematic Review

Correlates of Fundamental Motor Skills in the Early Years (0–4 Years): A Systematic Review

Motor Development Comparison between Preterm and Full-Term Infants Using Alberta Infant Motor Scale

Development of Movement and Postural Patterns in Full-Term Infants Who Are at Low Risk in Belgium, India, Norway, and the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About