4.2 Article

Comparison of the GMFM-66 and the PEDI Functional Skills Mobility domain in a group of Chinese children with cerebral palsy

Journal

CHILD CARE HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages 398-403

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01149.x

Keywords

cerebral palsy; child disability; measurement; skills

Funding

  1. Arizona Biomedical Research Commission

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Previous research has suggested there is a high level of comparability between the Gross Motor Function Measure-66 (GMFM-66) and the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) Functional Skills Mobility domain. However, there are only a few studies that have examined the correlations between these instruments. The purpose of this study was to determine the correlation between the GMFM-66 and the PEDI Functional Skills Mobility domain scaled scores in a group of Chinese children with spastic cerebral palsy, at the ages of 12-70 months, in order to explore the feasibility of using them interchangeably. Methods Secondary data analysis was conducted of data collected during a prospective international collaborative study that used the GMFM-66 and the PEDI to examine the impact of treatment. This study examined the Pearson correlations between the GMFM-66 and the PEDI Functional Skills Mobility domain at six time points over the course of 28 consecutive weeks for 115 Chinese children who participated at baseline. Results Pearson correlations between the GMFM-66 and the PEDI Functional Skills Mobility domain ranged from 0.83 to 0.90 for the six time points of data collection, with statistically significant P-values <0.0001 for each correlation. Conclusions These results support previous research that the GMFM-66 and the PEDI Functional Skills Mobility domain are complementary assessments that may be used interchangeably when it is not possible to administer both.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available