Prediction of infant s motor development

Transcription

1 Available online at Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) WCLTA 2010 Prediction of infant s motor development Sophia Charitou a *, Katerina Asonitou b, Dimitra Koutsouki c a University of Athens, Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Laboratory of Adapted Physical Activity/ Developmental and Physical Disorders 41 Ethnikis Antistasis,177 Athens,Greece Abstract The aim of the study was to predict motor development using indicators from infant s early motor performance. A group of 46 infants were tested with Alberta Infant Motor Scale and were divided in two groups according to the interval time of assessment (2 and 6 months). The results for the first group revealed that supine position could predict infant s motor development after a 6 month interval for reassessment. The results for the second group revealed that supine and prone position were important indicators for predicting infants motor development after 2 months interval for reassessment Published by Elsevier Ltd. Keywords: prediction; infants; motor development; AIMS; motor skill. 1. Introduction Evaluation of infant s motor development is considered as one of the most valid indicators for normal growth (Piper & Darrah,1994). Researchers are particularly interested in identifying motor milestones that can predict motor development (Robson, 1984; Allen & Alexander, 1990; Allen & Alexander, 1997; Jeng et al., 2000). Robson (1984) studied the correlation between the age that infants achieve walking and the age that they achieve motor skills that are preceding walking (sitting, crowling, creeping, and standing). He found out that evaluation of motor skills like sitting, crowling, creeping and stand can predict the age of walking. Walking is a milestone with high predictive value. (Jeng et al., 2000). Movements like sitting with or without using forearms, creeping and cruising can predict cerebral palsy in high-risk infants (Allen & Alexander, 1997). Taanila et al. (2005) studied the correlation between the age that infants attain standing position and their later motor and academic development. Results of their study revealed that standing is an important motor milestone for overall development. Objective of this study was to predict motor development of Greek infants using indicators from infant s early motor performance. * Sophia Charitou. Tel.: ; fax: address: sofhar@phed.uoa.gr Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi: /j.sbspro

2 Sophia Charitou et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) Method 2.1. Participants For the purpose of the study a group of 46 infants were tested with Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) (Piper & Darrah, 1994). Participants recruited from public and private nursery schools were divided in two groups according to the interval time of assessment (2 months and 6 months). The first group s (N 1 = ) interval time for reassessment was 6 month and the characteristics of the subjects are illustrated on the table below: Table : Characteristics of infants with 6 months interval time for reassessment. Variable M S.D. N SEX AGE 10,85 16,78 1,07 1,13 TOTAL AIMS 43,87 57,52 7,65,59 PRONE SUBSCALE 17,08 21,00 3,21,00 SUPINE SUBSCALE 8,83 9,00,56,00 SIT SUBSCALE 10,33 12,00 1,63,00 STAND SUBSCALE 7,62 15,52 3,,59 The second group s (N 2 = ) interval time for reassessment was 2 months and the characteristics of the subjects are illustrated on the table below: Table : Characteristics of infants with 2 months interval time for reassessment Variable M S.D. N

3 458 Sophia Charitou et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) SEX AGE 13,38 15,38 2,47 2,36 27 TOTAL AIMS 51,14 55,04 9,56 6,55 PRONE SUBSCALE 19,35 20,26 3,78 2,49 SUPINE SUBSCALE 8,75 8,95,96,20 SIT SUBSCALE 11,39 11,82 1,,65 STAND SUBSCALE 11,64 14,00 4,39 3, Instruments AIMS (Piper & Darrah, 1994) is a norm referenced scale evaluating gross motor development of infants aging 0-18 months old. It contains 58 items divided into 4 subscales: a) prone, b) supine, c) sit, d) stand. All items of AIMS include variables such as weight bearing, postural alignment and antigravity movement for evaluation. It s an observational tool and is used by researchers from different countries for the evaluation of infant s motor development and the screening for motor delays or difficulties (Bartlett, 1997; Darrah et al., 1998; Darrah et al., 1998; Jeng et al., 2000; Jeng et al., 2000; Campbell et al., 2002; Majnemer & Barr, 2005) Statistical analysis The dependent variable was the total AIMS score from the 2nd assessment and the independent variables were scores of the four subscales of AIMS (prone, supine, sit and stand) from 1st assessment. Stepwise multiple regression was used to predict infant s motor development. 3. Results The results for the first group (N 1 ) revealed that supine position could predict infant s motor development after 6 month interval for reassessment. R-square was,295 meaning that 29,5% of confidence interval could be explained by supine subscale. The regression equation was AIMS= 52,583 +,560 X supine position (table 3.2). Correlation coefficient between total AIMS scores at reassessment and four subscales (prone, supine, sit, stand) scores at first assessment were statistically significant (table 3.1).

4 Sophia Charitou et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) Table 3.1. Correlation coefficient between total AIMS scores at and four subscales (prone, supine, sit, stand) scores at 1 st assessment Variable AIMS2 Prone Supine Sit Stand AIMS2 1,00,945**,902**,774**,779** Prone subscale 1,00,847**,833**,784** Supine subscale 1,00,745**,604** Sit subscale 1,00,782** Stand subscale 1,00 *: p<,05 **: p<,01 Table 3.2. Results of multiple regression equations for prediction of infants motor development from scores at AIMS four subscales, 2 months ago. Variables Unstandarised Standarised t p Prone position 1,095,638 5,699,000 Supine position 2,2,361 3,226,004 Constant= 14,447 = 14, ,095 X prone position + 2,2 X supine position The results for the second group (N 2 ) revealed that supine and prone position were important factors for predicting infants motor development after 2 months interval for reassessment. R-square was,929 meaning that 92,9% of confidence interval could be explained by supine and prone subscales. The regression equation was AIMS: 14, ,095 X prone position + 2,2 X supine position (table 3.4) Correlation coeficient between total AIMS scores at reassessmnt and four subscales (prone, supine, sit, stand) scores at first assessment were statistically important (table 3.3). Table 3.3 Correlation coefficient between total AIMS scores at and four subscales (prone, supine, sit, stand) scores at 1 st assessment Variable AIMS2 Prone Supine Sit Stand AIMS2 1,00,517**,544**,360*,418* Prone subscale 1,00,774**,819**,701** Supine subscale 1,00,633**,384* Sit subscale 1,00,542** Stand subscale 1,00 *: p<,05 **: p<,01

5 460 Sophia Charitou et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) Table 3.4. Results of multiple regression equations for prediction of infants motor development from scores at AIMS four subscales, 6 months ago. Variables Unstandarised Standarised t p Supine position,560,544 2,968,007 Constant= 52,583 = 52,583 +,560 X supine position. 4. Conclusion In conclusion, prediction of infant s motor development by using indicators from early motor performance is possible. Evaluation of motor development at such young age can provide clinicians with necessary information about overall development. Motor development interacts with other developmental areas such as cognitive and emotional and can be a solid indicator for future cognitive development. Infants at high- risk or infants at lowrisk, even when they grow up normally, at preschool age may confront learning or motor disorders (Hall et al., 1995; Goyen et al., 1998; Goyen & Lui, 2002). Early identification of those infants that may experience motor delays or difficulties is extremely significant for future assessment and intervention (Gallahue & Ozmun, 1997; Jeng et al., 2000). Nevertheless, repeated evaluations can lead in more safe results. Motor development is a dynamic procedure that is influenced by a number of factors and therefore cannot be linear. Continuous evaluation can provide more valid prediction. In that way, early intervention programs will be administrated to those infants that really need them. Benefits are both economical and psychological, as early interventions programs can be costly. On the other hand, delays in identifying possible developmental problems may lead to child and parent anxiety as well as to decisions that are not of the child s best interest. References Allen, M.C., & Alexander, G.R. (1990). Gross motor milestones in preterm infants: correction for degree of prematurity. Journal of Pediatrics, 116, Allen, M.C., & Alexander, G.R. (1997). Using motor milestones as a multistep process to screen preterm infants for cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 39, Bartlett, D. (1997). Primitive reflexes and early motor development. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 18, Campbell, S.K., Kolobe, T.H.A., Wright, B.D., & Linacre, J.M. (2002). Validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance for prediction of 6-, 9- and 12-month scores on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale [ ]. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 44, Darrah, J., Piper, M., & Watt, M.-J. (1998). Assessment of gross motor skills of at- risk infants: Predictive validity of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale [electronic version]. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 40, Darrah, J., Redfern, L., Maguire, T.O., Beaulne, A.P., & Watt, J. (1998). Intra- individual stability of rate of gross motor development in full-term infants. [electronic version]. Early Human Development, 52, Gallahue, D. L., & Ozmun, J. (1997). Understanding motor development. Infants, children, adolescents, adults. USA: McGraw-Hill, Higher Education. Goyen, T.-A., & Lui, K. (2002). Longitudinal motor development of apparently normal high-risk infants at 18 months, 3 and 5 years. [electronic version]. Early Human Development, 70, Goyen, T.-A., Lui, K., & Woods, R. (1998). Visual motor, visual perceptual, and fine motor outcomes in very low birthweight children at 5 years. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 40, Hall, A., McLeod, A., Counsell, C., Thomson, L., & Mutch, L. (1995). School attainment, cognitive ability and motor function in a total Scottish very- low- birthweight population at eight years: A controlled study. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 37, 1037-

6 Sophia Charitou et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) Jeng, S.-F., Tsou Yau, K.-I., Chen, L.-C., & Hsiao, S.-F. (2000). Alberta Infant Motor Scale: Reliability and validity when used on preterm infants in Taiwan. Physical Therapy, 80(2), Jeng, S.-F., Tsou Yau, K.-I., Liao, H.-F., Chen, L.-C., & Chen, P.-S. (2000). Prognostic factors for walking attainment in very lowbirthweight preterm infants [electronic version]. Early Human Development, 59, Majnemer, A., & Barr, R.G. (2005). Influence of supine sleep positioning on early motor milestone acquisition [ ]. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 47, Piper, M.C., Darrah, J. (1994). Motor assessment of the Developing Infant. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company. Robson, P. (1984). Prewalking locomotor movements and their use in predicting standing and walking. Child: Care, Health and Development, 10, Taanila, A., Murray, G.K., Jokelainen, J., Isohanni, M., & Rantakallio, P. (2005). Infant developmental milestones: a 31-year follow-up [electronic version]. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 47,