Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2)
The previously posted information is current and up to date at this time
Tavasoli A, Azimi P, Montazari A. Reliability and Validity of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-Second Edition for Assessing Motor Development of Low Birth Weight Preterm Infants. Pediatric Neurology [serial online]. October 2014;51(4):522-526.
The Purpose of the Article
The purpose of this article was to validate the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, 2nd Edition for infants with low birth weight.
Study Population
The study included 88 infants, 58 LBW infants, from the teaching hospital associated with Iran University of Medical Sciences, and 30 normal birth weight infants from the pediatric clinic of the same hospital.
LBW Group: infants with gestation less than 37 weeks were considered ‘preterm neonates’, and were excluded if they had asphyxia, hemorrhage, congenital malformations, small for gestation, in utero retardation, chromosomal abnormalities, genetic syndromes, and multiples. The corrected age was calculated as such: 37-gestation=A, corrected age=chronological age-A
Control Group: infants excluded included NICU admission, gestation of <37 weeks or >42 weeks, multiples; and MSK, neuro, and genetic disorders that could negatively influence motor development.
Methods
This was a cross-sectional study between June and November 208 in Tehran, Iran.
The researchers used this as a prospective clinical validation study, using a control group, to test the reliability, internal consistency (using Cronbach alpha coefficient), test-retest reliability (using ICC at a one week interval), and validity (convergent validity/criterion validity).
A skilled occupational therapist collected the data for both groups and a skilled pediatric neurologist and neurosurgeon performed the evaluation.
Outcome Measures
Using the PDMS-2 with LBW and normal birth weight infants and comparing the infants’ scores with the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 2nd Edition (BSID-II).
Intervention
The pediatric neurologist and neurosurgeon performed both the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-Second Edition and the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 2nd Edition on all subjects.
Results
The mean age of the infants was 18 months (2) and the mean duration of the admission period in LBW group was 7.5 days (4-11).
There was desirable internal consistency in the questionnaire, the alpha coefficient being 0.90-0.93 for the PDMS-2, there were high ICCS (0.98) signifying excellent stability. The validity of the PDMS-2 discriminated well between the LBW and the control groups. The PDMS-2 scores in the LBW group were significantly lower for the Fine Motor Quotient and the Total Motor Quotient, however there was no significant difference between the two groups for the Gross Motor score. The research showed there was a strong correlation between the BSID-II Motor Scale and the PDMS-2 fine and gross motor scales, showing good convergent validity(r=0.81, P<0.001).
Strengths of the Article
The researchers had many participants in their study, and they had the peds neurologist and peds neurosurgeon do all 88 participants in the same day, maintaining consistency.
Limitations of the Article
The researchers only used participants 18 months of age (+/- 2 months), and they did not study ‘extremely’ LBW infants, so further research would be needed to test children of other ages and extreme weight ranges (possible issues with motor abilities, socio-behavioral and cognitive function. The researchers mentioned they did not include environmental cultural factors of rearing in each group. The researchers also used an older version of the Bayley scales, which might be a limitation for the congruency between the two motor scales.
Overall Conclusion
Overall, the research shows that the PDMS-2 is reliable and valid scale to be used in the clinic for infants, specifically 18 month olds, with low birth weight.
One response to “Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I like how the study had ample sample size in order to evaluate the test. I also like how the authors had separate individuals collect the data and also evaluate the date in order to maintain the blinding of the study. Great comment showing a limitation of the study being that they didn’t study extremely low birth weight individuals as I would be interested in seeing these results.