ORIGINAL PAPER
Comparison of the predictive validity of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale and Infant Neurological International Battery in low-birth-weight infants: a prospective longitudinal study
1
Department of Physiotherapy, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India
Submission date: 2022-12-03
Acceptance date: 2024-05-07
Publication date: 2025-06-18
Corresponding author
Shreekanth D. Karnad
Department of Physiotherapy, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India
Department of Physiotherapy, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India
Physiother Quart. 2025;33(2):39-44
KEYWORDS
Infant Neurological International BatteryAlberta Infant Motor Scalemotor outcomeslow birth weight infantspredictive validityPeabody Developmental Motor Scale-2
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
This study aims to test the predictive validity of the Infant Neurological International Battery (INFANIB) and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) against the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale-2 (PDMS-2) at 4, 8 and 12 months of age in low birth weight (LBW) infants.
Methods:
Motor development in 18 LBW infants was examined prospectively at 4, 8 and 12 months. A professional investigator assessed the motor development of these infants using the AIMS, INFANIB and PDMS-2. The validity of the results was assessed using Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests on the total raw scores of PDMS-2, AIMS and INFANIB at the three distinct age points. The chi-square test was used to calculate the association between INFANIB and AIMS with PDMS-2 for normal and LBW infants at each age point.
Results:
The INFANIB and AIMS scores were both associated with PDMS-2 at all three age points. However, INFANIB demonstrated a higher predictive validity for PDMS-2 in LBW infants than AIMS.
Conclusions:
The INFANIB has greater predictive validity than AIMS for assessing motor outcomes in LBW infants at 4, 8 and 12 months.
This study aims to test the predictive validity of the Infant Neurological International Battery (INFANIB) and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) against the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale-2 (PDMS-2) at 4, 8 and 12 months of age in low birth weight (LBW) infants.
Methods:
Motor development in 18 LBW infants was examined prospectively at 4, 8 and 12 months. A professional investigator assessed the motor development of these infants using the AIMS, INFANIB and PDMS-2. The validity of the results was assessed using Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests on the total raw scores of PDMS-2, AIMS and INFANIB at the three distinct age points. The chi-square test was used to calculate the association between INFANIB and AIMS with PDMS-2 for normal and LBW infants at each age point.
Results:
The INFANIB and AIMS scores were both associated with PDMS-2 at all three age points. However, INFANIB demonstrated a higher predictive validity for PDMS-2 in LBW infants than AIMS.
Conclusions:
The INFANIB has greater predictive validity than AIMS for assessing motor outcomes in LBW infants at 4, 8 and 12 months.
REFERENCES (33)
1.
Pedersen SJ, Sommerfelt K, Markestad T. Early motor development of premature infants with birth weight less than 2000 grams. Acta Paediatr. 2000;89(12):1456–61; doi: 10.1080/080352500456642.
2.
Tavasoli A, Aliabadi F, Eftekhari R. Motor developmental status of moderately low birth weight preterm infants. Iran J Pediatri. 2014;24(5):581–6.
3.
Vericat A, Orden AB. Psychomotor development screening tools in Latin America . Rev Child Paediatr. 2010;81(5):391–401; doi: 10.4067/S0370-41062010000500002.
4.
Tecklin JS (eds.). Pediatric Physical Therapy. 5th ed. Painos: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2015.
5.
Spittle AJ, Doyle LW, Boyd RN. A systematic review of the clinimetric properties of neuromotor assessments for preterm infants during the first year of life. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008;50(4);254–66; doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.02025.x.
6.
Darrah J, Piper M, Watt MJ. Assessment of gross motor skills of at-risk infants: predictive validity of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1998;40(7):485–91; doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1998.tb15399.x.
7.
Jones MA, Mcewen IR, Jeffries LM. Assessment of motor skills – screening and assessment tools. In: Wolraich ML (eds.). Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics. Evidence and Practice. Philadelphia: MOSBY Elsevier; 2008, pp. 190–201.
8.
Ellison PH, Horn JL, Browning CA. Construction of an Infant Neurological International Battery (INFANIB) for the assessment of neurological integrity in infancy. Phys Ther. 1985;65(9):1326–31; doi: 10.1093/ptj/65.9.1326.
9.
Soleimani F, Dadkhah A. Validity and reliability of Infant Neurological International Battery for detection of gross motor developmental delay in Iran. Child Care Health Dev. 2007;33(3):262–5; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00704.x.
10.
Connolly BH, McClune NO, Gatlin R. Concurrent validity of the Bayley-III and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale-2. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2012;24(4):345–52; doi: 10.1097/PEP.0b013e318267c5cf.
11.
Gill K, Osiovich A, Synnes A, Agnew JA, Grunau RE, Miller SP, Zwicker JG. Concurrent validity of the Bayley-III and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 at 18 months. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2019;39(5):514–24; doi: 10.1080/01942638.2018.1546255.
12.
Luo F, Chen Z, Ma XL, Lin HJ, Bao Y, Wang CH, Shi LP. Infant Neurological International Battery predicts neurological outcomes of preterm infants discharged from the neonatal intensive care unit [in Chinese]. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi. 2013;15(1):5–8.
13.
Charpak N, de la Hoz AM, Villegas J, Gil F. Discriminant ability of the Infant Neurological International Battery (INFANIB) as a screening tool for the neurological follow-up of high-risk infants in Colombia. Acta Paediatr. 2016;105(5):e00195–9; doi: 10.1111/apa.13377.
14.
Albuquerque PL, Guerra MQ, Lima MD, Eickmann SH. Concurrent validity of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale to detect delayed gross motor development in preterm infants: a comparative study with the Bayley III. Dev Neurorehabil. 2018;21(6):408–14; doi: 10.1080/17518423.2017.1323974.
15.
Palisano RJ. Concurrent and predictive validities of the Bayley Motor Scale and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales. Phys Ther. 1986;66(11):1714–9; doi: 10.1093/ptj/66.11.1714.
16.
Tavasoli A, Azimi P, Montazari A. Reliability and validity of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-Second Edition for assessing motor development of low birth weight preterm infants. Pediatr Neurol. 2014;51(4):522–6; doi: 10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2014.06.010.
17.
Sanhueza AD. Psychomotor development, environmental stimulation, and socioeconomic level of preschoolers in Temuco, Chile. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2006;18(2):141–7; doi: 10.1097/01.pep.0000223103.69720.33.
18.
Levinson ML. Impact on development using the stepping intervention model (SIM) for infants with motor delay. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2001;13(4):211.
20.
Darrah J, Hodge M, Magill-Evans JE, Kembhavi G. Stability of serial assessments of motor and communication abilities in typically developing infants- implications for screening. Early Hum Dev. 2003;72(2):97–110; doi: 10.1016/s0378-3782(03)00027-6.
21.
Kalverboer AF, Hopkins B, Geuze R. (eds.). Motor Development in Early and Later Childhood: Longitudinal Approaches. 1st ed. European Science Foundation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
22.
Zaveri A, Paul P, Saha J, Barman B, Chouhan P. Maternal determinants of low birth weight among Indian children: evidence from the National Family Health Survey-4, 2015–16. PLOS ONE. 2020;15(12):e0244562; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244562.
23.
Jana A, Saha UR, Reshmi RS, Muhammad T. Relationship between low birth weight and infant mortality: evidence from National Family Health Survey 2019–21, India. Arch Public Health. 2023;81(1):1–14.
24.
Chokshi T, Alaparthi GK, Krishnan S, Vaishali K, Zulfeequer CP. Practice patterns of physiotherapists in neonatal intensive care units: a national survey. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2013;17(6):359–66; doi: 10.4103/0972-5229.123448.
25.
Piper MC, Darrah J. Motor Assessment of the Developing Infant. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1994.
26.
Jeng SF, Yau KIT, Chen LC, Hsiao SF. Alberta Infant Motor Scale: Reliability and validity when used on preterm infants in Taiwan. Phys Ther. 2000;80(2):168–78.
27.
Harris SR, Backman CL, Mayson TA. Comparative predictive validity of the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2010;52(7):462–7; doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2009.03518.x.
28.
Liao W, Wen E-Y, Li C, Chang Q, Lv K-L, Yang W, He Z-M, Zhao C-M. Predicting neurodevelopmental outcomes for at-risk infants: reliability and predictive validity using a Chinese version of the INFANIB at 3, 7 and 10 months. BMC Pediatr. 2012;12:72; doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-12-72.
29.
Kolobe TH, Palisano RJ, Stratford PW. Comparison of two outcome measures for infants with cerebral palsy and infants with motor delays. Phys Ther. 1998;78(10):1062–72; doi: 10.1093/ptj/78.10.1062.
30.
Eliks M, Gajewska E. The Alberta Infant Motor Scale: a tool for the assessment of motor aspects of neurodevelopment in infancy and early childhood. Front Neurol. 2022;13:927502; doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.927502.
31.
11 Advantages and Disadvantages of Longitudinal Studies. FutureofWorking.com. Available from: https://futureofworking.com/11... (assessed 30.08.2023).
32.
Fagerland MW. T-tests, non-parametric tests, and large studies- a paradox of statistical practice?. BMC Med Res Methodol.2012;12(78):1–7; doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-78.
33.
Choosing Between a Nonparametric Test and a Parametric Test. Available from: https://blog.minitab.com/en/ad... 09.02.2024).
| eISSN: | 2544-4395 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
