4.5 Article

Construct validity of the Infant Motor Profile: relation with prenatal, perinatal, and neonatal risk factors

Journal

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY
Volume 52, Issue 9, Pages E209-E215

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03667.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. postgraduate school Behavioural and Cognitive Neurosciences (BCN), University of Groningen

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM The Infant Motor Profile (IMP) is a qualitative assessment of motor behaviour of infants aged 3 to 18 months. The aim of this study was to investigate construct validity of the IMP through the relation of IMP scores with prenatal, perinatal, and neonatal variables, including the presence of brain pathology indicated by neonatal ultrasound imaging of the brain. METHOD A longitudinal prospective study was performed in a group of 30 term infants (12 females, 18 males; median gestational age 40.1wks, range 37.6-42wks) and 59 preterm infants (25 females, 34 males; median gestational age 29.7wks, range 25-34.7wks). IMP assessments were performed at (corrected) ages of 4, 6, 10, 12, and 18 months. Socio-economic and perinatal data were collected, which, in the case of preterm infants, included information on periventricular leukomalacia and intraventricular haemorrhage based on neonatal cranial ultrasound. Data were analysed by fitting mixed-effects models. RESULTS Gestational age, socio-economic status, and 5-minute Apgar scores were significant determinants of IMP scores in the total group of infants (p<0.001, <0.002, and <0.042 respectively). In the subgroup of preterm infants, IMP scores were significantly affected by brain lesions on neonatal ultrasound (p<0.001) and by socio-economic status (p=0.001). INTERPRETATION The findings support the construct validity of the IMP: IMP scores are clearly associated with relevant determinants of neuromotor function.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available