Bianca Mendonça1, Barbara Sargent2, Linda Fetters2. 1. Division of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine, Physical Therapy, Children's Hospital, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy at the Ostrow School of Dentistry, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To investigate whether standardized motor development screening and assessment tools that are used to evaluate motor abilities of children aged 0 to 2 years are valid in cultures other than those in which the normative sample was established. METHOD: This was a systematic review in which six databases were searched. Studies were selected based on inclusion/exclusion criteria and appraised for evidence level and quality. Study variables were extracted. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies representing six motor development screening and assessment tools in 16 cultural contexts met the inclusion criteria: Alberta Infant Motor Scale (n=7), Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd edition (n=2), Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, 3rd edition (n=8), Denver Developmental Screening Test, 2nd edition (n=4), Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (n=1), and Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, 2nd edition (n=1). Thirteen studies found significant differences between the cultural context and normative sample. Two studies established reliability and/or validity of standardized motor development assessments in high-risk infants from different cultural contexts. Five studies established new population norms. Eight studies described the cross-cultural adaptation of a standardized motor development assessment. INTERPRETATION: Standardized motor development assessments have limited validity in cultures other than that in which the normative sample was established. Their use can result in under- or over-referral for services.
AIM: To investigate whether standardized motor development screening and assessment tools that are used to evaluate motor abilities of children aged 0 to 2 years are valid in cultures other than those in which the normative sample was established. METHOD: This was a systematic review in which six databases were searched. Studies were selected based on inclusion/exclusion criteria and appraised for evidence level and quality. Study variables were extracted. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies representing six motor development screening and assessment tools in 16 cultural contexts met the inclusion criteria: Alberta Infant Motor Scale (n=7), Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd edition (n=2), Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, 3rd edition (n=8), Denver Developmental Screening Test, 2nd edition (n=4), Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (n=1), and Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, 2nd edition (n=1). Thirteen studies found significant differences between the cultural context and normative sample. Two studies established reliability and/or validity of standardized motor development assessments in high-risk infants from different cultural contexts. Five studies established new population norms. Eight studies described the cross-cultural adaptation of a standardized motor development assessment. INTERPRETATION: Standardized motor development assessments have limited validity in cultures other than that in which the normative sample was established. Their use can result in under- or over-referral for services.
Authors: Maaike C A Sprong; Marco van Brussel; Linda S de Vries; Janjaap van der Net; Joppe Nijman; Johannes M P J Breur; Martijn G Slieker Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2022-04-16
Authors: Shamsudeen Mohammed; Laura L Oakley; Milly Marston; Judith R Glynn; Clara Calvert Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2022-09-03 Impact factor: 7.664