Hand Assessment for Infants

Posted on: March 3, 2017 | By: wsmith25 | Filed under: Hand Assessment for Infants
  1. Descriptive Information
  2. Title, Edition, Dates of Publication and Revision*
  • Hand Assessment for Infants (HAI)
  • Edition and Date information unable to find at this time.
  1. Author (s)
  • Lena Krumlinde-Sundholm
  1. Source (publisher or distributor, address)
  • Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
  1. Costs (booklets, forms, kit)*
  • Information not available at this time.
  1. Purpose*
  • This test is administered to measure fine motor performance in infants. The test contains separate hand task as well as bimanual task.  Each hand is scored individually in order to show discrepancy in unilateral hand function or asymmetry.
  1. Type of Test (eg, screening, evaluative; interview, observation,

Check list or inventory)*

  • Evaluative
  1. Target Population and Ages*
  • Infants with asymmetric hand use dysfunction. Infants 3-10 months of age.
  1. Time Requirements – Administration and Scoring*
  • Play session lasting ~10 minutes. Time for scoring unavailable.
  1. Test Administration
  2. Administration
  • The test will assess three categories being upper limb movement, reaching, as also grasping. The evaluator will present the infant with toys to promote exploration and handling of these toys which are presented from various places including from the evaluator’s hands and from the table.  One study recommended video recording the infant for review at a later time.
  1. Scoring
  • The scoring scale consist of 40 items that includes unilateral hand task as well as bimanual task to assess asymmetry in the infant.
  1. Type of information, resulting from testing

(e.g. standard scores, percentile ranks)

  • The test can provide information of unilateral as well as bimanual fine motor skills in the infant to assess asymmetry.
  1. Environment for Testing
  • None specified
  1. Equipment and Materials Needed
  • Toys for presentation and manipulation by the infant.
  1. Examiner Qualifications
  • Information not available at this time.
  1. Psychometric Characteristics*
  2. Standardization/normative data
  • No normative data available at this time.
  1. Evidence of Reliability
  • Reliability coefficients ≥ 0.80 shown for all three categories.
  1. Evidence of Validity
  2. Discriminative
  3. Predictive
  4. Evaluative
  5. ***Must include MCID when available
  • Information unavailable at this time.

III.             Summary Comments*

  1. Strengths
  • Strengths of this test include the ability to evaluate bimanual fine motor skills as well as unilateral motor skills. The test is also quick to administer however scaling/scoring time is unavailable.
  1. Weaknesses
  • No normative data nor reliability/validity scores were available for this test.
  1. Clinical Applications
  • This assessments appears to be clinically applicable for infants ages 3-10 months who are also experiencing unilateral or bimanual motor skill deficits. This test is applicable where asymmetry in UE motor skills are noted.

References

  • Krumlinde-Sundholm, L., Ek, L., and A. Elisson. What assessments evaluate use of hands in infants? A literature review.  PubMed.  2015; 37-41.
  • Guzzetta, A., Boyd, R., Perez, M., et al. UP-BEAT (Upper Limb Baby Early Avtion- observation training): protocol of two parallel randomized controlled trials of action- observation training for typically developing infants and infants with asymmetric brain lesions.  BMJ Open..  2013; 3(2).
  • A. Eliasson. Intervention and neurodevelopment.  30 Nov 2015.  Available at http://ki.se/en/kbh/intervention-and-neurodevelopment.  Assessed 03 March 2017.
  • A. Eilasson.  Constraint induced movement therapy for children.  10 Jul 2014.  Available at http://ki.se/en/kbh/neurodevelopment-and-intervention-research-projects.  Assessed 03 March 2017.
  • Krumlinde-Sundholm, L., Sicola, E., Guzzetta, A., et al. The hand assessment for infants, a new test for measuring use of hands and possible asymmetry in infants 3-10 months of age.  Developmental medicine and child neurology. 2015; 57(S5). 54-55.

 

Article Review

Reference: Krumlinde-Sundholm, L., Sicola, E., Guzzetta, A., et al. The hand assessment for infants, a new test for measuring use of hands and possible asymmetry in infants 3-10 months of age.  Developmental medicine and child neurology. 2015; 57(S5). 54-55.

The purpose of this research article was to evaluate infants with clinical signs of unilateral cerebral palsy.  This articles objective was to determine whether the hand assessment for infants is an appropriate measure of hand function in subject showing signs of cerebral palsy. The article included a convenience sample of 110 infants with clinical signs of cerebral palsy.  (56 right; 54 left)  The hand assessment for infants test was administered with systematic observation of the infant’s goal directed hand actions.  The Rasch measurement model was used in order to model validity.  The test resulted in information on unilateral as well as bilateral actions which were assessed for quality and frequency.  The results showed excellent internal validity with a variance measure of 71.7%-74.5%.  The study also showed internal consistency ratios that were within acceptable limits for all three subscales.  Strengths of this article/study include population size as well as inclusion criteria for the test.  Limitation of this article include detailed description of methodology.

 

 

 

One response to “Hand Assessment for Infants”

  1. amckee3 says:

    I found this article interesting because I never really considered how to objectively measure hand strength in infants, but I can imagine this would be an extremely useful screening tool for a multitude of diagnoses. I do wish there had been more information on how this test was administered, but I see that it was a limitation of the study noted in the article summary. I also would be curious to know if there is any type of data to show what the typical hand strength is for a child at a given age, and if there is a growth chart to follow. Otherwise, while this is a very interesting evaluative tool, it may be hard to use clinically with no point of reference for “normal”.

Leave a Reply