Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 18, 2026
Measuring the Functional Abilities of Children Aged 3-6 Years Old with Observational Methods and Computer Tools
Published on: June 20, 2020
Agreement between scales for screening and diagnosis of motor development at 6 months
Denise Campos1, Denise C C Santos, Vanda M G Gonçalves
1Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Insights
The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and Bayley Scales of Infant Development II (BSID-II) show good agreement for assessing 6-month-old infant motor development. The AIMS 5th percentile cutoff is recommended for screening.
Area of Science:
- Pediatrics
- Developmental Pediatrics
- Motor Development Assessment
Background:
- Early identification of motor development delays is crucial for timely intervention.
- Standardized tools are needed to accurately screen and diagnose motor impairments in infants.
- The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and Bayley Scales of Infant Development II (BSID-II) are commonly used for motor assessment.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the agreement between AIMS and BSID-II for motor development screening in 6-month-old infants.
- To determine the optimal AIMS cutoff point for effective motor development screening.
Main Methods:
- A cross-sectional study involving 43 healthy, full-term infants aged 6 months.
- Infants were assessed using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and the motor scale of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II (BSID-II).
- Two AIMS cutoff points (5th and 10th percentiles) were compared against BSID-II motor index scores.
Main Results:
- A total of 6 infants (14%) showed inadequate motor performance based on BSID-II.
- Using the AIMS 5th percentile cutoff yielded 100% sensitivity and 78.37% specificity.
- The AIMS 10th percentile cutoff resulted in 100% sensitivity but lower specificity (48.64%).
Conclusions:
- The AIMS and BSID-II demonstrate good concordance in assessing motor development at 6 months.
- The 5th percentile cutoff for the AIMS is the most effective for screening, balancing sensitivity and specificity.
Objective:
To ascertain the degree of agreement between a score for screening and another for diagnosis of motor development in 6-month old infants and to define the most appropriate cutoff point for screening.
Methods:
A sectional study, enrolling asymptomatic full term newborns with gestational ages from 37 to 41 weeks, who were discharged from the maternity unit 2 days after birth and are resident in the Campinas area. Infants were excluded if they presented genetic syndromes, malformations, congenital infections, intensive care admission or low birth weight. The assessment instruments investigated were the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II (BSID-II). Two cutoff points were evaluated for the AIMS, the 5th and 10th percentiles, and for the BSID-II infants were classified according to its motor index score (IS) as having inadequate (IS < 85, at least 1 standard deviation below the mean) or adequate performance (IS >or= 85, above the mean minus 1 standard deviation).
Results:
The study sample comprised 43 infants. Six infants (14.00%) exhibited inadequate motor performance. Using the BSID-II motor classification and the 5th percentile AIMS cutoff, sensitivity was 100%, specificity 78.37%, accuracy 81.39%, kappa index 0.50 and p < 0.001; whereas, using the BSID-II motor classification and the 10th percentile AIMS cutoff, sensitivity was 100%, specificity 48.64%, accuracy 55.81%, kappa index 0.20 and p 0.025.
Conclusions:
The results suggest that concordance between the two 6-month assessment scales is good. The parameters employed are best combined using the 5th percentile AIMS cutoff point.
