Posted on: March 16, 2015 | By: jkuenzel | Filed under: Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2
  1. Descriptive Information
    1. Title: Peabody Developmental Motor Scales (PDMS-2)
      1. Edition: 2nd edition
      2. Dates of Publication: 1983
      3. Revision*: 2000
    2. Author (s): Rhonda Folio, Rebeca R. Fewell
    3. Source (publisher or distributor, address): Pearson (pearsonclinical.com)
    4. Costs (booklets, forms, kit)*: $530.00 for PDMS-2 Complete Kit (includes manual, profile, summary forms, examiner record booklets, illustrated guide to administering and scoring, Peabody Motor Activities Program Manual, 25 examiner/record forms, 25 profile forms, Peabody Motor Development Chart, and manipulatives, all in a sturdy storage box.) & additional Examiner Record Booklets pkg of 25 is $85.00 and additional Profile/Summary Forms pkg of 25 is $37.00
    5. Purpose*: To assess the motor skills of children of ages birth to 5 years old via gross motor, fine motor, and total motor and compare to normative values.
    6. Type of Test (eg, screening, evaluative; interview, observation,

checklist or inventory)*: assesses motor skills (evaluative)

  1. Target Population and Ages*: birth to 5 years old
  2. Time Requirements – Administration and Scoring*: 20-30 minutes for each motor-related subtest or 45-60 minutes for entire assessment
  1. Test Administration
    1. Administration: six subtests—reflexes, stationary, locomotion, object manipulation, grasping, and visual-motor integration
    2. Scoring: composite scores of Gross Motor Quotient, Fine Motor Quotient, and Total Motor Quotient
    3. Type of information resulting from testing: compares to normative data of the current U.S. population via standard score, percentile ranks, and age equivalents.
    4. Environment for Testing: safe environment with room to move around
    5. Equipment and Materials Needed: manual, profile, summary forms, examiner record booklet, guide to administering/scoring, “manipulatives”; all included in kit
    6. Examiner Qualifications: Qualification B (tests may be purchased by individuals with a master’s degree in psychology, education, OT, social work, or other associated field, and formal training in the ethical administration, scoring & interpretation OR certification by/membership in professional organization that requires training & experience in the relevant area of assessment OR a degree/license to practive to the healthcare/allied healthcare field OR formal educational training specific to assessing development.
    7. Psychometric Characteristics: Sensitivity only last 6 months
    8. Standardization/normative data: collected between 1997-1998 of 2,003 children in the U.S. and Canada of children without disabilities and 10% of children with disabilities
    9. Evidence of Reliability: Excellent test-retest & inter-rater reliability1, 2
    10. Evidence of Validity: depends of the population; high concurrent validity to Mullen Scales of Early Learning & Bayley Scales of Infant Development (with developmental quotients but not classification agreement); Construct validity: high correlations between age & subtest raw scores)1
    11. Discriminative
    12. Predictive
  • Summary Comments*
    1. Strengths: clear descriptions of scoring, qualifications for administering, can be used in a variety of populations, gross/fine/total motor
    2. Weaknesses: cost, qualifications for administering, time to administer
    3. Clinical Applications: developmental status, neurological status, gross or fine motor or total

 

  1. Wang HH, Liao HF, Hsieh CL. Reliability, sensitivity to change, and responsiveness of the Peabody developmental motor scales-second edition for children with cerebral palsy. Physical Therapy. 2006; 86:1.
  2. van Hartingsveldt MJ, Cup EH, Oostendorp R. Reliability and validity of the fine motor scale of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales–2. Ther. Int. 2005;12: 1–13.
  3. Chen C, Kang L, Hong WH, Chen FC, Chen HC, Wu C. Effect of therapist-based constraint-induced therapy at home on motor control, motor performance and daily function in children with cerebral palsy: a randomized controlled study. Clin 2012; 27(3): 236-245.

 

Article Summary: Chen C, Kang L, Hong WH, Chen FC, Chen HC, Wu C. Effect of therapist-based constraint-induced therapy at home on motor control, motor performance and daily function in children with cerebral palsy: a randomized controlled study. Clin Rehab. 2012; 27(3): 236-245.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of CIT on motor performance, daily function, and reaching control in children with CP. The study treated 47 patients, 23 males and 24 females, of a age 6-12 years with hemiplegic CP. Inclusion criteria were spastic unilateral CP, significant nonuse of the affected UE, ability to extend wrist and MCPs 10° above neutral and no excessive muscle tone determined by the Modified Ashworth Scale. Exclusion criteria were severe congnitive/visual/auditory disorder, severe concurrent illness not associated with CP, active medical conditions, any major surgery or nerve block such as botox in the 6 months before CIT, and poor cooperative.  There were two randomized—one of traditional rehabilitation and one CIT group. Both groups received treatments of 3.5-4hours/day, 2days/week for 4 weeks and continued their original rehabilitation programs. Therapy in the CIT group included using of the more affected arm in functional tasks with opposite arm retrained. The traditional group used techniques such as positioning, strengthening, and functional unilateral and bilateral arm training. The outcome measures used were the PDMS-2, and the Pediatric Motor Activity Log. The results were a significant increase in the PDMS-2 scores in the CIT group compared to the traditional group, but not on the Visual Motor Integration subscale. The CIT group also had increased hand use and quality of hand use on the Pediatric Motor Activity Log. There were not differences between the groups for normalized movement. The authors stated these results were statistically significant (P<.05). Limitations to the article include possible differences in home practice and other rehabilitation between the groups and the length of the study. The major strengths of this study were the randomized design, the relatively large sample size, the fact that this study was approved by an IRB, and the objective measures used as outcome measures. Overall, the study found that there were improvements noted in most parameters tested by this study and the study appeared to be of quality.

 

Submitted by: Jamie Kuenzel