Objective To compare Chinese and American norms for the Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP), to understand the difference and clarify the importance of localization studies and revision, so as to provide evidence for guiding the promotion of TIMP in China. Methods After the manual of TIMP having been finished by using forward and backward translation and appraisers having been trained, Chinese norms for TIMP were established by sampling in 11 medical institutions in East China, North China, South China, Central China, Southwest, Northwest and Northeast China. Then the Chinese norms were compared with American norms through the sample, score, and subgroup classification. Results There were 13 week-age groups in Chinese norms for TIMP, and the total number of samples is 1 035, including 56% males and 44% females, 95% Han nationality and 5% ethnic minorities, of which 31% were premature infants and 69% were full-term infants. There were 12 week-age groups in American norms for TIMP with a total of 990 samples, including 52% males and 48% females, 58% whites and 25% blacks, of which high risk, medium risk, and low-risk infants accounted for 35%, 30% and 35%, respectively. The average score of each age group of Chinese norms for TIMP was lower than that of the same age group of American norms(P<0.001), and the 10th, 50th and 90th percentile curves of Chinese norms were lower than those of American norms. There were no significant differences in the scores of most week-age groups between full-term and premature subgroups in Chinese norms, but the score of the high-risk infants subgroup of American norms was significantly lower than those of the low-risk subgroup(P<0.001). Conclusions Based on the differences in the demographic characteristics and the development of child health in two countries, the sample population between Chinese and American norms for TIMP is different. The average scores in all week-age groups of Chinese norms are lower than those of the same week-age group of American norms, so American norms could not be directly used as the reference standard in Chinese clinical work.
Key words
Test of Infant Motor Performance /
norm /
infant
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] Volpe JJ. Brain injury in premature infants: a complex amalgam of destructive and developmental disturbances[J]. Lancet Neurol, 2009,8(1):110-124.
[2] Titomanlio L, Kavelaars A, Dalous J, et al. Stem cell therapy for neonatal brain injury: perspectives and challenges[J]. Ann Neurology, 2011,70(5):698-712.
[3] Harrison MS, Goldenberg RL. Global burden of prematurity[J]. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med, 2016,21(2):74-79.
[4] Novak I, Morgan C, Adde L, et al. Early, accurate diagnosis and early intervention in cerebral palsy: Advances in diagnosis and treatment[J]. JAMA Pediatrics, 2017,171(9):897-907.
[5] Hughes AJ, Redsell SA, Glazebrook C. Motor development interventions for preterm infants: A systematic review and Meta-analysis[J]. Pediatrics, 2016,138(4):e20160147.
[6] Campbell PTSK, Osten ET,Kotobe THA,et al. Development of the Test of Infant Motor Performance[J]. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, 1993, 4(3):541-550.
[7] Ustad T, Helbostad JL, Campbell SK, et al. Test-retest reliability of the Test of Infant Motor Performance Screening Items in infants at risk for impaired functional motor performance[J]. Early Human Development,2016,93:43-46.
[8] Peyton C, Schreiber MD, Msall ME. The Test of Infant Motor Performance at 3 months predicts language, cognitive, and motor outcomes in infants born preterm at 2 years of age[J]. Dev Med Child Neurol, 2018,60(12):1239-1243.
[9] Chiquetti E, Valentini NC, Saccani R. Validation and reliability of the Test of Infant Motor Performance for Brazilian infants[J]. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr,2020,40(4):1-16.
[10] Campbell SK, Kolobe TH, Wright BD, et al. Validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance for prediction of 6-, 9- and 12-month scores on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale[J]. Dev Med Child Neurol,2002,44(4):263-272.
[11] Oberg GK, Campbell SK, Girolami GL, et al. Study protocol: an early intervention program to improve motor outcome in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial and a qualitative study of physiotherapy performance and parental experiences[J]. BMC Pediatrics,2012,12:15.
[12] Guimaraes CL, Reinaux CM, Botelho AC, et al. Motor development evaluated by Test of Infant Motor Performance: comparison between preterm and full-term infants[J]. Rev Bras Fisioter,2011,15(5):357-362.
[13] Nuysink J, van Haastert IC, Eijsermans MJ, et al. Prediction of gross motor development and independent walking in infants born very preterm using the Test of Infant Motor Performance and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale[J]. Early Human Development,2013,89(9):693-697.
[14] Campbell SK, Levy P, Zawacki L, et al. Population-based age standards for interpreting results on the test of motor infant performance[J]. Pediatr Phys Ther,2006,18(2):119-125.
[15] 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[J]. Dev Med Child Neurol,2008,50(4):254-266.
[16] Noble Y, Boyd R. Neonatal assessments for the preterm infant up to 4 months corrected age: a systematic review[J]. Dev Med Child Neurol,2012,54(2):129-139.
[17] 王成举,赵树琳,申量,等. 642例矫正胎龄38~58周婴儿运动表现测试结果的分析[J]. 中国当代儿科杂志, 2017,19(12):1252-1256.
[18] 贺莉,陈艳妮.婴儿运动能力测试临床应用[J].中国实用儿科杂志,2017,32(11):813-816.
[19] Tharabenjasin P, Pabalan N, Jarjanazi H, et al. Association of PPARGC1A Gly428Ser (rs8192678) polymorphism with potential for athletic ability and sports performance: A meta-analysis[J]. PLoS One, 2019, 14(1):e0200967.
[20] 缪琼, 柴臻, Jane S, 等. 基于《年龄与发育进程问卷-第3版》调查的中国和美国1~66个月儿童发育状况的比较[J]. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2017,12(2):111-115.
PDF(574 KB)
