Predicting neurodevelopmental outcomes for at-risk infants: reliability and predictive validity using a Chinese version of the INFANIB at 3, 7 and 10 months

BMC Pediatrics

Cong-min Zhao¹  Zhou-mei He¹  Wang Yang¹  Kui-lin Lv¹  Qing Chang¹  Chao Li¹  En-yi Wen¹  Wei Liao¹ 

[1] Department of Pediatrics, Xinqiao Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing 400037, China

关键词: Chinese population;    Neuromotor abnormality;    Prediction;    Neurological development;    Infant;   

Others  :  1170772
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2431-12-72

 received in 2011-08-30, accepted in 2012-05-29,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Chinese primary care settings have a heavy patient load, shortage of physicians, limited medical resources and low medical literacy, making it difficult to screen for developmental disorders in infants. The Infant Neurological International Battery (INFANIB) for the assessment of neuromotor developmental disorders in infants aged 0 ~ 18 months is widely applied in community health service centers because of its simplicity, time-saving advantages and short learning curve. We aimed to develop and assess a Chinese version of the INFANIB.

Methods

A Chinese version of the INFANIB was developed. Fifty-five preterm and 49 full-term infants with high risk of neurodevelopmental delays were assessed using the Chinese version of the INFANIB at 3, 7 and 10 months after birth. The Peabody Developmental Motor Scale (PDMS) was simultaneously used to assess the children with abnormalities and diagnose cerebral palsy. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the scale were calculated.

Results

At birth, a higher proportion of full-term infants had asphyxia (p < 0.001), brain damage ( p = 0.003) and hyperbilirubinemia ( p = 0.022). The interclass correlation coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient values for the INFANIB at 3, 7 and 10 months were >0.8, indicating excellent reliability with regard to inter- and intraobserver differences. The specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were high for both high-risk premature infants and full-term infants at the age of 10 months. For premature infants at the age of 7 months or below, INFANIB had low validity for detecting abnormalities.

Conclusions

The Chinese version of the INFANIB can be useful for screening infants with high-risk for neuromotor abnormality in Chinese primary care settings.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Liao et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Beck S, Wojdyla D, Say L, et al.: The worldwide incidence of preterm birth: a systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity. Bull World Health Organ 2010, 88:31-38.
• [2]Lorenz J, Wooliever D, Jetton J, Paneth N: A quantitative review of mortality and developmental disability in extremely premature newborns. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007, 152:425-435.
• [3]Vaccarino FM, Ment LR: Injury and repair in developing brain. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004, 89:F190-F192.
• [4]Palmer FB, Capute AJ: Streams of development: the keys to developmental assessment. In Oski's Essential Pediatrics. Edited by Crocetti M, Barone MA. Philadephia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2004:120-122.
• [5]Blauw-Hospers CH, Hadders-Algra M: A systematic review of the effects of early intervention on motor development. Dev Med Child Neurol 2005, 47:421-432.
• [6]de Graaf-Peters VB, Hadders-Algra M: Ontogeny of the human central nervous system: what is happening when? Early Hum Dev 2006, 82:257-266.
• [7]Yi SR: Bayley Scales of Infant Development (China Urban Version). Changsa: Hunan Medical University Corp; 1992.
• [8]Ball RS: The Gesell Developmental Schedules: Arnold Gesel (1880–1961). J Abnormal Child Psychol 1977, 5:233-239.
• [9]Folio MR, Fewell RR: Peabody Developmental Motor Scales Examiner′s Manual. 2nd edition. Austin, TX: ProEd; 2000:33-52.
• [10]Jeng SF, Yau KT, Chen LC, Hsiao SF: Alberta Infant Motor Scale: reliability and validity when used on preterm infants in Taiwan. Phys Ther 2000, 80:168-179.
• [11]Campbell SK, Hedeker D: Validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance for discriminating among infants with varying risk for poor motor outcome. J Pediatric 2001, 139:546-551.
• [12]Miller LJ, Roid GH: The T.I.M.E. Toddler and Infant Motor Evaluation: A Standardized Assessment. Therapy Skill Builders: Tucson, AZ; 1994.
• [13]Ellison PH: Scoring sheet for the Infant Neurological International Battery (INFANIB): suggestions from the field. Phys Ther 1986, 66:548-550.
• [14]Soleimani F, Dadkhah A: Validity and reliability of Infant Neurological International Battery for detection of gross motor developmental delay in Iran. Child Care Health Dev 2007, 33:262-265.
• [15]Ellison PH, Horn JL, Browning CA: Construction of an Infant Neurological International Battery (Infanib) for the assessment of neurological integrity in infancy. Phys Ther 1985, 65:1326-1331.
• [16]Kelly Y, Sacker A, Schoon I, Nazroo J: Ethnic differences in achievement of developmental milestones by 9 months of age: The Millennium Cohort Study. Dev Med Child Neurol 2006, 48:825-830.
• [17]Malina RM: Racial/ethnic variation in the motor development and performance of American children. Can J Sport Sci 1988, 13:136-143.
• [18]Palisano RJ, Kolobe TH, Haley SM, Lowes LP, Jones SL: Validity of the Peabody Developmental Gross Motor Scale as an evaluative measure of infants receiving physical therapy. Phys Ther 1995, 75:939-948.
• [19]Yang H, Shi W, Wang SJ, Li H, Luo DD, Wang Y: Reliabiity and validity of Peabody Developmental Motor Scale in assessment of infants and toddlers. Chinese J Child Health Care 2010, 18:121-122. [in Chinese]
• [20]Bax M, Goldstein M, Rosenbaum P, et al.: Proposed definition and classification of cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2005, 47:571-576.
• [21]Behrman RE, Kliegman RM, Jenson HB: Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics. 17th edition. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2004:23-66.
• [22]Heineman KR, Hadders-Algra M: Evaluation of neuromotor function in infancy-A systematic review of available methods. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2008, 29:315-323.
• [23]Kolobe TH, Palisano RJ, Stratford PW: Comparison of two outcome meaures for infants with cerebral palsy and infants with motor delays. Phys Ther 1998, 78:1062-1072.
• [24]Pedersen SJ, Sommerfelt K, Markestad T: Early motor development of premature infants with birthweight less than 2000 grams. Acta Paediatr 2000, 89:1456-1461.
• [25]van Haastert IC, de Vries LS, Helders PJM, Jongmans MJ: Early gross motor development of preterm infants according to the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. J Pediatr 2006, 149:617-622.
• [26]Bartlett DJ, Fanning JE: Use of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale to characterize the motor development of infants born preterm at eight months corrected age. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 2003, 23:31-45.
• [27]de Vries AM, de Groot L: Transient dystonias revisited: a comparative study of preterm and term children at 2 1/2 years of age. Dev Med Child Neurol 2002, 44:415-421.
• [28]da Silva ES, Nunes ML: The influence of gestational age and birth weight in the clinical assessment of the muscle tone of healthy term and preterm newborns. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2005, 63:956-962.
• [29]Perlman JM, Risser R: Can asphyxiated infants at risk for neonatal seizures be rapidly identified by current high-risk markets? Pediatrics 1996, 97:456-462.
• [30]Hunt SM, Alonso J, Bucquet D, Niero M, Wiklund I, McKenna S: Cross-cultural adaptation of health measures: European Group for Health Management and Quality of Life Assessment. Health Policy 1991, 19:33-44.
• [31]Hyrkäs K, Appelqvist-Schmidlechner K, Oksa L: Validating an instrument for clinical supervision using an expert panel. Int J Nurs Stud 2003, 40:619-625.