Cross-Cultural Validity: Canadian Norm Values of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale Evaluated for Dutch Infants

Suir, Imke; Boonzaaijer, Marike; Nijmolen, Petra; Westers, Paul; Nuysink, Jacqueline

doi:10.1097/pep.0000000000000637

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These included preterm birth ( 15 ), perinatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy ( 16 , 17 ), cystic periventricular leukomalacia ( 18 ), cardiac surgery ( 19 ), univentricular heart ( 20 ), positional plagiocephaly ( 21 , 22 ), torticollis ( 23 ), positional asymmetry ( 24 ), Down syndrome ( 25 ), and infected with the Zika virus ( 26 ). So far, research on the reliability and validity of the AIMS has been performed in Japanese ( 27 ), Chinese ( 28 ), Brazilian ( 29 ), Spanish ( 30 ), Thai ( 31 – 33 ), Greek ( 34 ), Dutch ( 35 ), Flemish ( 14 ), and Serbian ( 36 ) sample groups. However, there has not yet been a study conducted on any Middle European population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Polish Version of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale: Cultural Adaptation and Validation

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Polish Version of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale: Cultural Adaptation and Validation

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, a singleton control group was not used. Recent research on the cross‐cultural validity of norm values of motor measurements shows that North American infants are ahead of European infants (De Kegel et al, 2013; Steenis et al, 2015a; 2015b; Suir et al, 2019). In this light, it might be debated whether the described results are indicators of delayed GMD in twins or merely a reflection of normal GMD in UK PT and FT infants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors associated with gross motor development from birth to independent walking: A systematic review of longitudinal research

Boonzaaijer

Suir

Mollema

et al. 2021

Child

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The aim of this study is to gain more insight into child and environmental factors that influence gross motor development (GMD) of healthy infants from birth until reaching the milestone of independent walking, based on longitudinal research. Background A systematic search was conducted using Scopus, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and CINAHL to identify studies from inception to February 2020. Studies that investigated the association between child or environmental factors and infant GMD using longitudinal measurements of infant GMD were eligible. Two independent reviewers extracted key information and assessed risk of bias of the selected studies, using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool (QUIPS). Strength of evidence (strong, moderate, limited, conflicting and no evidence) for the factors identified was described according to a previously established classification. Results In 36 studies, six children and 11 environmental factors were identified. Five studies were categorized as having low risk of bias. Strong evidence was found for the association between birthweight and GMD in healthy full‐term and preterm infants. Moderate evidence was found for associations between gestational age and GMD, and sleeping position and GMD. There was conflicting evidence for associations between twinning and GMD, and breastfeeding and GMD. No evidence was found for an association between maternal postpartum depression and GMD. Evidence for the association of other factors with GMD was classified as ‘limited’ because each of these factors was examined in only one longitudinal study. Conclusion Infant GMD appears associated with two child factors (birthweight and gestational age) and one environmental factor (sleeping position). For the other factors identified in this review, insufficient evidence for an association with GMD was found. For those factors that were examined in only one longitudinal study, and are therefore classified as having limited evidence, more research would be needed to reach a conclusion.

show abstract

“…In several studies with the AIMS, cultural background appears to be a factor influencing motor developmental pace. In the Netherlands, infants' gross motor development seems to develop at a slower pace than Canadian and American infants measured with the AIMS [48,49] and Bayley Scales of Infant Development [50]. These cross-cultural differences in the pace of motor development are also observed in other populations [38,51,52].…”

Section: Shape Of Gross Motor Curves and Factors Of Influencementioning

confidence: 82%

“…Since in our study infants with no or only minor complications (IVH I-II), but without BPD and severe brain damage as in the study of Su et al, were included, it would be expected that the Dutch infants would have performed better. However, their sample consists of Taiwanese infants, and previous research seems to show, as stated earlier, Dutch infants develop at a slower pace than in other cultures [48][49][50].…”

Section: Profiles In Gross Motor Curvesmentioning

confidence: 89%

Modeling gross motor developmental curves of extremely and very preterm infants using the AIMS home-video method

Suir

Boonzaaijer²,

Oudgenoeg‐Paz³

et al. 2022

Early Human Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross-Cultural Validity: Canadian Norm Values of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale Evaluated for Dutch Infants

Cited by 18 publications

References 17 publications

The Polish Version of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale: Cultural Adaptation and Validation

The Polish Version of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale: Cultural Adaptation and Validation

Factors associated with gross motor development from birth to independent walking: A systematic review of longitudinal research

Modeling gross motor developmental curves of extremely and very preterm infants using the AIMS home-video method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About