Instruments of Assessment for First Two Years of Life of Infant

Authors

  • Rafaela Silva Moreira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
  • Elyonara Mello de Figueiredo Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.61309

Keywords:

child development, infant, assessment, reproducibility of tests, physioterapy

Abstract

Abstract
Introduction: the developmental assessment of infants seeks to identify and classify early developmental delay and /or schedule an intervention. This assessment is considered inefficient when performed only by professional clinical judgment. Thus there are numerous assessment scales to help professionals in this process, requiring a greater knowledge of their advantages and disadvantages. Objectives: to identify and analyze instruments used for assessment of infant development from zero to two years old. Methods: a search was made in the most important databases in the area, in the manual of the instruments used for evaluation and books of Pediatric Physical Therapy. The following data of each standardized instrument were extracted: general characteristics, psychometrics, theoretical basis of each instrument, validity of the instruments for Brazilian children and accessibility of the instruments to the physiotherapist in Brazil. Results: articles about TIMP, DUBOWITZ, MAI, AIMS and BAYLEY-III were selected. The TIMP presents the best indices of reliability and sensitivity for the evaluation of pre-term infants in the four first months of life, however it takes long time to apply and depends on the emotional state of the infant. DUBOWITZ is an instrument that is easy and quick to use although it is not easily found in Brazil. The literature suggests a reevaluation of the MAI instrument as it presents limited psychometric properties, especially a poor validity of construct. AIMS proved to have the best psychometric properties and conditions for clinical use. Bayley III is one the best instruments with high psychometric properties, however it is not of common use in Brazil probably because of the high cost of its application kit. Conclusion: for pre-term infants up to 4 months the TIMP seems to be the instrument of choice, but for longer follow-up up to 18 months, AIMS is the best option, and above this age the Bayley-III scale is adequate as it presents very good psychometric properties.

References

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. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 2008; 50:254–266.

Bly, L. Motor skills acquisition in the first year: an illustrated guide to normal development. Therapy Skill Builders; 1994.

Santos RS, Araújo APQC, Porto MAS. Early diagnosis of abnormal development of preterm newborns: assessment instruments. Jornal de Pediatria 2008; 84(4).

Piper M, Darrah J. Motor Assessment of The Developing Infant. Philadelphia: W.B. Company; 1994.

Vieira MEB, Ribeiro FV, Formiga CKMR. Principais instrumentos de avaliação de desenvolvimento da criança de zero a dois anos de idade. Revista Movimenta 2009;2(1).

Mancini MC, Teixeira S, Araújo LG, Magalhães LC, Coelho, ZAC. Estudo do desenvolvimento da função motora aos 8 e 12 meses de idade em crianças nascidas pré-termo e a termo. Arq. neuropsiquiatr 2002; 60(4): 974-980.

Snider L, Majnemer A, Mazer B, Campbell S, Bos AF. Prediction of Motor and Functional Outcomes in Infants Born Preterm Assessed at Term. Pediatric Physical Therapy 2009; 21:2-11.

Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 3 ed. Pearson: prentice hall; 2009.

Burton AW. Movement Skill Assessment. University of Minnesota: ed Human Kinetics; 1998.

Heineman K R, Hadders-Algra M. Evaluation of Neuromotor Function in Infancy–A Systematic Review of Available Methods. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2008; 29:315–323.

Majnemer A, Snider L. A comparison of developmental assessments of the newborn and young infant. Mental retardation and developmental disabilities. Research Reviews 2005; 11: 68–73.

Herrero D, Gonçalves H, Siqueira AAF, Abreu LC. Escalas de desenvolvimento motor em lactentes: Test of infant motor performance e a Alberta infant motor scale. Rev Bras Crescimento Desenvolvimento Hum. 2011; 21(1):122-132

Molteno C, Grosz P, Wallace P, Jones M. Neurological examination of the preterm and fullterm infant at risk for developmental disabilities using the Dubowitz Neurological Assessment. Early Human Development 1995; 41:167-176.

Dubowitz L; Dubowitz V. The neurological Assessment of the preterm and full-term newborn infant. Clinics in Developmental medicine 1981;79.

Dubowitz L, Ricci D, Mercuri E. The dubowitz neurological examination of the full-term newborn. Mental retardation and developmental disabilities 2005; 11:52–60.

Woodward LJ, Mogridge N, Scott WW, Terrie EI. Can Neurobehavioral Examination Predict the Presence of Cerebral Injury in the Very Low Birth Weight Infant? Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 2004; 25(5).

Magalhães LV, Lacerda TTB. Análise da validade dos itens do Movement Assesment of infants-MAI- para crianças pré-termo. Revista Brasileira de Saúde Materno infantil 2006; 6(3):297-308.

Cardoso AA, Magalhães LC, Amorim RHC, Paixão ML, Mancini MC, Rossi LDF. Validade preditiva do Movement Assesment of Infants para crianças pré-termo brasileiras. Arquivos de Neuropsiquiatria 2004; 62(4).

Manacero S, Nunes ML. Evaluation of motor performance of preterm newborns during the first months of life using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). Jornal de Pediatria 2008; 84(1).

Valentini NC, Saccani R. Brazilian Validation of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Physical Therapy 2012; 92:440-447.

Almeida KM, Dutra MVP, Mello RR, Reis ABR, Martins PS. Validade concorrente e confiabilidade da Alberta Infant Motor Scale em lactentes nascidos prematuros. Jornal de Pediatria 2008; 84(5).

Bayley, N. Bayley scales of infant and toddler development. 3ed. San Antonio: Pearson; 2006.

Silva NDSH, Filho FL, Gama MEAG et al. Instrumentos de avaliação do desenvolvimento infantil de recém-nascidos prematuros. Rev. Bras. Cresc. e Desenv. Hum. 2011; 21(1): 85-98.

Harris SR, Megens AM, L Backman CL, Hayes VEH. Stability of the Bayley II Scales of Infant Development in a sample of low-risk and highrisk infants. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 2005; 47: 820–823.

Weiss L G, Oakland T, Aylward G. Bayley-III Clinical Use and Interpretation – 2010. [Livro online]. [Acesso em 16 abr 2012]. Disponível em: http://books.google.com.br/books.

Jackson, BJ, Needelman H, Roberts H, Willet S, Mcmorris C. Bayley Scales of Infant Development Screening Test-Gross Motor Subtest: efficacy in determining need for services. Pediatric physical therapy / 2012; 24(1): 58-62.

Downloads

Published

2013-08-23

Issue

Vol. 23 No. 2 (2013)

Section

Artigos Originais

License

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis