Reliability and Concurrent Validity of a Chinese Version of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale Administered to High-Risk Infants in China

Abstract

The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) is widely used to screen for delays in motor development in high-risk infants, but its reliability and validity in Chinese infants have not been investigated. To examine the reliability and concurrent validity of AIMS in high-risk infants aged 0-9 months in China, this single-center study enrolled 50 high-risk infants aged 0-9 months (range, 0.17-9.27; average, 4.14±2.02), who were divided into two groups: 0-3 months (n=23) and 4-9 months (n=27). A physical therapist evaluated the infants with AIMS, with each evaluation video-recorded. To examine interrater reliability, two other evaluators calculated AIMS scores by observing the videos. To measure intrarater reliability, the two evaluators rescored AIMS after >1 month, using the videos. Concurrent validity was assessed by comparing results between AIMS and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale-2 (PDMS-2). For all age groups analyzed (0-3, 4-9, and 0-9 months), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for AIMS total score were high for both intrarater comparisons (0.811-0.995) and interrater comparisons (0.982-0.997). AIMS total scores were well correlated with all PDMS-2 subtest scores (ICC=0.751-0.977 for reflexes, stationary, locomotion, grasping, and visual-motor integration subsets). However, the fifth percentile of AIMS total score was only moderately correlated with the gross motor quotient, fine motor quotient, and total motor quotient subtests of PDMS-2 (kappa=0.580, 0.601, and 0.724, respectively). AIMS has acceptable reliability and concurrent validity for screening of motor developmental delay in high-risk infants in China.

Reliability, Consistency and Temporal Stability of Alberta Infant Motor Scale in Serbian Infants

“…The lower values might be explained by the difficult assessment of younger infants in situations with poor cooperation. Our findings are, to a certain degree, in line with previous reports, particularly for standing components in the early infant period [17].…”

“…Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability was done by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Reliability according to the values of ICCs were grouped as: >0.90 = high, 0.75-0.90 = good, 0.50-0.75 = moderate, and <0.50 = poor [17]. Inter-rater reliability was additionally analyzed by Bland-Altman plots.…”

“…Proper evaluation of the motor development of infants, particularly those who are at an increased risk for a delay, is of great importance for an adequate and onetime inclusion of effective treatment with proper follow-up. It was stated that AIMS could potentially be useful in the detection of motor deficits in an early stage for high-risk infants [17]. Effective decision making and strategies for the good management of children with motor delay is still insufficient.…”

Reliability Study of the Items of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) Using Kappa Analysis

“…The AIMS was developed and standardized using 2,202 infants' data from one week to 18 months of age in Alberta, Canada, in 1994 [14], and is used by many countries, including Brazil [22], Spain [23], China [24], Taiwan [25], and Greece [26]. Interrater reliability, consistency, and intra-class reliability were also assessed for each language by researchers in each country [1,27,28].…”

Assessment of motor development using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale in full-term infants

“…5,8 AIMS has been used internationally as a clinical or research outcome measure for assessing gross motor abilities of term or preterm infants, although it is a Canadian norm-references measure. [9][10][11][12][13] The validity of the AIMS was obtained for infants in Spain, 12 a South African region, 14 Brazil, 15 Japan, 16 China, 17 and Taiwan. 18 Although AIMS is commonly used in various countries, the question remains as to whether current Canadian norm values represent the AIMS scores of infants with different cultural backgrounds.…”