Citation

Harris SR, Backman CL, Mayson TA. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2010; 52(5): 462-467.

Affiliation

Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2010, Mac Keith Press, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1469-8749.2009.03518.x

PMID

19863637

Abstract

Aim We compared abilities of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT), during the infant's first year, in predicting scores on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) at age 2 and 3 years. Method This prospective study involved 144 infants (71 females, 73 males), assessed with the HINT and AIMS at 4 to 6.5 and 10 to 12.5 months and with the BSID at 2 and 3 years. Inclusion criteria for typical infants (n=58) were the following: 38 to 42 weeks' gestation, birthweight at least 2500g, and no congenital anomaly, postnatal health concern, nor major prenatal or perinatal maternal risk factor. For at-risk infants (n=86), inclusion criteria were any of the following: less than 38 weeks' gestation, birthweight less than 2500g, maternal age older than 35 years or younger than 19 years at infant birth, maternal psychiatric/mental health concerns, prenatal drug/alcohol exposure, multiple births, or use of reproductive technology. Results For the overall sample, the early (4-6.5mo) HINT had higher predictive correlations than the AIMS for 2-year BSID-II motor outcomes (r=-0.36 vs 0.26), and 3-year BSID-III gross motor outcomes (r=-0.45 vs 0.31), as did the 10- to 12.5-month HINT (r=-0.55 vs 0.47). Correlations were identical for 10- to 12.5-month HINT and AIMS scores and 3-year BSID-III gross motor (r=-0.58 and 0.58) and fine motor (r=-0.35 and 0.35) subscales. When the sample was divided into typical and at-risk groups, predictive correlations were consistently stronger for the at-risk infants. Categorical predictive analyses were reasonably similar across both tests. Interpretation Results suggest that the HINT has comparable predictive validity to the AIMS and should be considered for use in clinical and research settings.

Language: en