master s program, by searching commonly-used tests of motor development as outcome

Transcription

1 Determining one psychometrically sound test of motor development in preschool children to do Rasch analysis ChiWen Chien Purpose: To determine one test of test motor development in children to do Rasch analysis in my master s program, by searching commonlyused tests of motor development as outcome measures and then by comparing psychometric properties of these tests. Methods: The study can be divided into tow stages. Firstly, to searching which tests of motor development have been commonly used as outcome measure, one searching strategies (Appendix 1) were developed to search tests of measuring preschool children s motor development in the Medline and CINAHL databases between 1994 and Secondly, the other searching strategies (Appendix 2) were developed to compare psychometric properties of these tests by reviewing the results of previous studies, which focused on examining these tests psychometric properties. Results: At the first stage, a total of 558 studies were found and then 27 tests of measuring preschool children s motor development were identified. Of them, only seven measures were used exceeding four times. These seven measures are the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM), Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI), Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID), Peabody Developmental Motor Scales (PDMS), Movement Assessment Battery for Children (MABC), Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and BruininksOseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP) in a hierarchical order. However, the GMFM is elaborated for children with cerebral palsy, not children with normal development. The PEDI and FIM are designed to measure ability to engage in functional tasks, instead of motor performance or skills. Moreover, the GMGM, PEDI and FIM have examined using the Rasch model. Thus, these three measures were excluded in the next stage. 1

2 According to the second search s result (Table 1), studies examining the psychometric characteristics of the PDMS were found to be more than other tests (i.e. 10 studies). The next were both the BSID and BOTMP (5 studies found) and the last was the MABC (2 studies found). Table 1 shows the psychometric properties of these four tests as reported in previous studies. These reported psychometric properties were further evaluated as three levels: high, medium and low, on the basis of commonlyused criteria (Table 2). Thus, figure 1 demonstrates that the PDMS had better psychometric properties than other three tests. Of the remaining three tests, the psychometric properties of the BSID seemed better than that of the MABC because of higher reliability. Conclusion: Results from the study indicated that either the PDMS or the BSID could be chosen as the possible tool during my master s program, because these two tests showed sound psychometric characteristics. However, the present study has three limitations. Firstly, because of the difficulty in obtaining the manuals of these tests, their manuals were not taken into account in the psychometric comparison. The psychometric properties of some tests may be well examined when developing these tests, and then the results were only recorded in the manual. Therefore, the comparison of psychometric properties of these tests might be slightly affected without these unpublished results. Secondly, some studies did not report their results (e.g. Horner s study in the BSID) or actual data (e.g. Croce et al s study in the MABC) in the abstracts; thereby caused difficulty in evaluating their results, especially when the full tests were uneasily obtained. Thirdly, the BSID, PDMS and BOTMP have been revised and then developed the second edition or short from in 1993, 2000 and 1983, respectively. Although the items of these latest versions may differ from the original ones, these versions were developed based on the same theoretical foundation. Consequently, the versions were viewed as the original, entering into the comparison of their psychometric properties in the study. 2

3 References Boulton, J. E., Kirsch, S. E., Chipman, M., Etele, E., White, A. M., & Pape, K. E. (1995). Reliability of the Peabody Developmental Gross Motor scale in children with cerebral palsy. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 15(1), Chow, S. M., & Henderson, S. E. (2003). Interrater and testretest reliability of the Movement Assessment Battery for Chinese preschool children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(5), Croce, R. V., Horvat, M., & McCarthy, E. (2001). Reliability and concurrent validity of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 93(1), Gebhard, A. R., Ottenbacher, K. J., & Lane, S. J. (1994). Interrater reliability of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales: Fine motor scale. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48(11), Hassan, M. M. (2001). Validity and reliability for the BruininksOseretsky Test of Motor Proficiencyshort form as applied in the United Arab Emirates culture. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 92(1), Horner, T. M. (1980). Testretest and homeclinic characteristics of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development in nine and fifteenmonthold infants. Child Development, 51(3), Huang, H. L., Chuang, S. F., Jong, Y. J., Yu, L., & Shieh, Y. L. (2000). Applicability of BSIDII in diagnosing developmental delay at kaohsiung area. Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 16(4), Jain, M., Turner, D., & Worrell, T. (1994). The Vulpe Assessment Sattery and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales: A preliminary study of concurrent validity between gross motor sections. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 14(1), Kolobe, T. H., Palisano, R. J., & Stratford, P. W. (1998). Comparison of two outcome measures for infants with cerebral palsy and infants with motor delays. Physical Therapy, 78(10), Liao, H. F., Mao, P. J., & Hwang, A. W. (2001). Testretest reliability of balance tests in children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 43(3), Palisano, R. J. (1986). Concurrent and predictive validities of the Bayley motor scale and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales. Physical Therapy, 66(11), Provost, B., Crowe, T. K., & McClain, C. (2000). Concurrent validity of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II motor scale and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales in twoyearold children. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 20(1), 518. Ramsay, M., & Fitzhardinge, P. M. (1977). A comparative study of two developmental scales: The Bayley and the Griffiths. Early Human Development, 1(2),

4 Rosenblum, S., & Josman, N. (2003). The relationship between postural control and fine manual dexterity. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 23(4), Schmidt, L. S., Westcott, S. L., & Crowe, T. K. (1993). Interrater reliability of the gross motor scale of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales with 4 and 5yearold children. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 5(4), Stephens, T. E., & Haley, S. M. (1991). Comparison of two methods for determining change in motorically handicapped children. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 11(1), 117. Stokes, N. A., Deitz, J. L., & Crowe, T. K. (1990). The Peabody developmental fine motor scale: An interrater reliability study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44(4), Tabatabainia, M. M., Ziviani, J., & Maas, F. (1995). Construct validity of the BruininksOseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 42(1), 313. Wilson, B. N., Kaplan, B. J., Crawford, S. G., & Dewey, D. (2000). Interrater reliability of the BruininksOseretsky Test of Motor Proficiencylong form. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17(1),

5 Table 1: Psychometric properties of these four tests as reported in previous studies Measures BSID a Research Sample size Reliability Validity Responsiveness Provost et al., (Normal) Concurrent validity (vs. PDMS b ) r=.83~.87 (age equivalent scores) r=.49~.64 (standard scores) Huang et al., (DD c ) Internal consistency σ=.95~.99 Interrater reliability r=.95~.96 Palisano, (Normal) 21 (Premature) Concurrent validity r=.78~.96 (vs. PDMSGM d ) r=.20~.57 (vs. PDMSFM e ) Predictive validity r=.25~.60 Horner, 1980 UR f UR Ramsay & Fitzhardinge, (Highrisk) Concurrent validity r=na, P<.0001 a Baylay Infant of Developmental Scales b Peabody Developmental Motor Scales c developmental delay d Peabody Developmental Motor ScalesGross motor subtest e Peabody Developmental Motor ScalesFine motor subtest f unreported (To be continued) 5

6 (Continued) Measures PDMS a Research Sample size Reliability Validity Responsiveness Provost et al., (Normal) Concurrent validity (vs. BSID b ) r=.83~.87 (age equivalent scores ) r=.49~.64 (standard scores) Kolobe et al., (CP c ) 18 (MD d ) Effect size=.32~.56 Boulton et al., (CP) Testretest reliability (GM e ) ICC=.82~.98 Intrarater reliability (GM) ICC=.89~.98 Interrater reliability (GM) Tabatabainia et al., 1995 ICC=.88~ (Normal) Construct validity (vs. BOTMP f ) FA g = fail to support framework Gebhard et al., (DD h ) Interrater reliability (FM i ) ICC=.90~.97 Jain et al., 1994 Schmidt et al., 1993 Stokes et al., 1990 Stephens & Haley, (Normal) 13 (DD) 11 (Normal) 22 (DD) Intrarater reliability (GM) ICC=.99 Interrater reliability (GM) ICC=.84~.94 Concurrent validity (GM vs. VAB j ) r= (Normal) Interrater reliability (FM) 16 (DD) ICC=.76~ (Handicapped) r=low (vs. GAS k ) (To be continued) Palisano, (Normal) 21 (Premature) Concurrent validity r=.78~.96 (GM vs. BSID) r=.20~.57 (FM vs. BSID) Predictive validity r=.25~60 (GM) r=.75 (FM) 6

7 (Continued) a Peabody Developmental Motor Scales b Bayley Infant of Developmental Scales c cerebral palsy d motor delay e Peabody Developmental Motor ScalesGross motor subtest f BOTMP g factor analysis h developmental delay i Peabody Developmental Motor ScalesFine motor subtest j Vulpe Assessment Battery k Goal Attainment Scaling (To be continued) 7

8 (Continued) Measures Research Sample size Reliability Validity Responsiveness Hassan, (Normal) Internal consistency FA b : significant Construct validity FA: partially Liao et al., (Normal) 36 (CP c ) Testretest reliability (balance d ) ICC=.40 BOTMP a Wilson et al., (Therapist) Interrater reliability Satisfactory Tabatabainia et al., 1995 Rosenblum & Josman, (Normal) Construct validity (vs. PDMS e ) FA=fail to support framework 47 (Normal) Concurrent validity (vs. NHPT f ) r=.31~.47 MABC g Chow & Henderson, 75 (Normal) Testretest reliability ICC= Interrater reliability ICC=.78 Croce et al., (Normal) Testretest reliability ICC=high a BruininksOseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency b factor analysis c cerebral palsy d BruininksOseretsky Test of Motor Proficiencybalance subtest e Peabody Developmental Motor Scales f NineHole Peg test g Movement Assessment Battery for Children Construct validity FA: partially Construct validity (vs. BOTMP) r=moderate 8

9 Table 2: Commonlyused criteria of evaluating psychometric properties Psychometric properties Reliability Criteria Internal consistency Cronbach s σ: High.85~.95 Testretest reliability Interrater reliability Intrarater reliability ICC: High.80 Medium.60 Low Spearman s ρ/ Pearson s r: High.90 Medium.70 Low Validity Construct validity Concurrent validity Predictive validity Responsiveness ICC: High.80 Medium.60 Low Spearman s ρ/ Pearson s r: High.90 Medium.70 Low Spearman s ρ/ Pearson s r: High.6 Medium.3 Low Effect size: High.80 Medium.50 Low 9

10 Figure1: Comparison of psychometric properties of these 4 tests Psychometric comparison High Medium Low No data Internal consistency Testretest reliability Interrater reliability Intrarater reliability Construct validity Concurrent validity Predictive validity Responsiveness BSID PDMS BOTMP MABC Tests of motor development 10

11 Appendix 1: The searching strategies to search tests of measuring preschool children s motor development in the Medline and CINAHL databases between 1994 and 2004 Searching strategies Explanations 1 exp *psychomotor performance/ or movement/ or children behavior/ 2 (motor$ or (fine adj3 motor) or (gross adj3 motor) or (hand adj3 function) or locomotion or (object adj3 manipula$) or grasp$ or (visual?motor)).tw. Motorrelated terms 3 exp *child, preschool/ or infant/ or child development/ or pediatrics/ 4 (child$ or infant$ or (preschool adj3 child$) or toddler).tw. Childrelated terms 5 exp treatment outcome/ or outcome assessment/ or (outcome and process assessment) Outcome measure 6 ((outcome adj3 measure) or (outcome adj3 assessment)).tw. 7 (1 or 2) and (3 or 4) and (5 or 6) 8 limit 7 to English language 9 remove duplicates from 8 10 limit 9 to yr= not animal/ not (review or comment or letter).pt. 13 (sensitivity.mp. and specificity/) or mass screening/ or Predictive Value of Tests/ or screening tests/ [mp=ti, ab, rw, sh, it] 14 (screen$ or sensitivity or specificity).tw not (13 or 14) 11

12 Appendix 2: The searching strategies to find previous studies examining the psychometric properties of these 4 tests of measuring preschool children s motor development in the Medline and CINAHL databases 1 Searching strategies exp *child, preschool/ or infant/ or child development/ or pediatrics/ 2 (child$ or infant$ or (preschool adj child$) or toddler).tw. Explanations Childrelated terms 3 4 psychometrics/ or Reproducibility of Results/ or Evaluation Studies/ or validation studies.pt. (Reliabilit$ or reproducibilit$ or repeatability$ or Validit$ or validat$ or responsive$ or (sensitivity to change)).tw. Psychometricsrelated terms 5 (1 or 2) and (3 or 4) 1. ((Bayley adj Scale$) or (Bayley Scale$ of Infant Development$)).tw. 2. ((BruininksOseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency) or BOTMP).tw ((Peabody Developmental Motor Scale$) or (PDMS) or (Peabody Developmental Gross Motor Scale$) or (PDMS?GM) or (Peabody Developmental Fine Motor Scale$) or (PDMS?FM)).tw. The search terms of these 4 tests 4. ((Movement ABC) or M?ABC or (Movement Assessment Battery?Checklist) or(movement Assessment Battery for Children) or MABC).tw. 7 5 and 6 8 Remove duplicates from 7 9 limit 8 to English language 12