Katharine Elizabeth Randall1, Doreen J Bartlett, Sarah Westcott McCoy. 1. Health and Rehabilitation Sciences Program (Ms Randall), and School of Physical Therapy (Dr Bartlett), Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research (Dr Bartlett), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (Dr Westcott), Division of Physical Therapy, University of Washington, Seattle.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare construct validity, interrater and test-retest reliabilities of the Pediatric Reach Test and the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance (ECAB), and their relationships with the Gross Motor Function Measure, 66-item version, Basal and Ceiling approach (GMFM-66-B&C) to appraise clinical utility of postural stability measures for children with cerebral palsy (CP). METHODS: A total of 28 children with CP, 2 to 7 years old, across all functional ability levels participated in 2 assessments over 2 weeks. Two assessors scored the measures during the first assessment. RESULTS: Both measures demonstrated construct validity, rs of 0.88 (P < .001). Both measures correlated with GMFM-66-B&C, rs > 0.95. Interrater and test-retest reliabilities were stronger for the ECAB than for the Pediatric Reach Test (intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.98 vs 0.87-0.94). The ECAB demonstrated lower measurement error and proportionately smaller minimal detectable change values. CONCLUSION: The ECAB is considered the better measure of postural stability among children with CP.
PURPOSE: To compare construct validity, interrater and test-retest reliabilities of the Pediatric Reach Test and the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance (ECAB), and their relationships with the Gross Motor Function Measure, 66-item version, Basal and Ceiling approach (GMFM-66-B&C) to appraise clinical utility of postural stability measures for children with cerebral palsy (CP). METHODS: A total of 28 children with CP, 2 to 7 years old, across all functional ability levels participated in 2 assessments over 2 weeks. Two assessors scored the measures during the first assessment. RESULTS: Both measures demonstrated construct validity, rs of 0.88 (P < .001). Both measures correlated with GMFM-66-B&C, rs > 0.95. Interrater and test-retest reliabilities were stronger for the ECAB than for the Pediatric Reach Test (intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.98 vs 0.87-0.94). The ECAB demonstrated lower measurement error and proportionately smaller minimal detectable change values. CONCLUSION: The ECAB is considered the better measure of postural stability among children with CP.
Authors: Kênnea M Almeida; Karolina A Albuquerque; Marina L Ferreira; Stéphany K B Aguiar; Marisa C Mancini Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Laura A Prosser; Samuel R Pierce; Timothy R Dillingham; Judy C Bernbaum; Abbas F Jawad Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 2.125