2006
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20050259
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reliability, Sensitivity to Change, and Responsiveness of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales–Second Edition for Children With Cerebral Palsy

Abstract: Our results provide strong evidence that the 3 composites of the PDMS-2 had high test-retest reliability and acceptable responsiveness. The PDMS-2 can be used as an evaluative motor measure for children with CP and aged 2 to 5 years.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
96
0
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 120 publications
(99 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
2
96
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…26 The criterion-prediction validity was reported to be .91. 26 The minimal detectable change of the Fine Motor Domain with a 90% confidence level was 4.935, as interpreted from the data reported by Wang et al 27 and by Haley and Fragala-Pinkham. 28 These assessments were conducted by one of the investigators (LJK).…”
Section: Use Of Virtual Reality To Improve Ue Control In Children Witmentioning
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…26 The criterion-prediction validity was reported to be .91. 26 The minimal detectable change of the Fine Motor Domain with a 90% confidence level was 4.935, as interpreted from the data reported by Wang et al 27 and by Haley and Fragala-Pinkham. 28 These assessments were conducted by one of the investigators (LJK).…”
Section: Use Of Virtual Reality To Improve Ue Control In Children Witmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…We used the minimal detectable change reported by Wang et al 27 to determine whether the change in the raw score of the Fine Motor Domain of PDMS-2 after the intervention reflected a real meaningful change.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reason why their ES result was small, unlike that of the present study, is probably because the standard deviation at the baseline was larger than that of the change after discharge. Nonetheless, the SRM represents responsiveness better than ES and the larger the SRM, the higher responsiveness 35) . This study had some limitations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reliability coefficients for the gross motor scales used in this study were high for content sampling (.89-.96), time sampling (.89-.94), and interrater reliability (.96-.99). Additionally, test-retest reliability on the gross motor scale was high (.98) and was responsive to change (Wang, Liao, & Hsieh, 2006). Content validity was determined to be satisfactory (Folio & Fewell, 2000).…”
Section: Instrumentsmentioning
confidence: 99%