Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2026
Quantified Assessment of Infant's Gross Motor Abilities Using a Multisensor Wearable
Published on: May 17, 2024
Comparative predictive validity of the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale
Susan R Harris1, Catherine L Backman, Tanja A Mayson
1Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada. susan.harris@ubc.ca
Insights
The Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT) shows predictive validity comparable to the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). Both tests are valuable for assessing infant motor development and predicting future outcomes.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric neurology
- Developmental pediatrics
- Infant motor assessment
Background:
- Early motor assessment is crucial for identifying developmental trajectories in infants.
- The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT) are commonly used tools for evaluating infant motor skills.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the predictive abilities of the AIMS and HINT in assessing infant motor development.
- To evaluate how well these scales predict scores on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) at 2 and 3 years of age.
Main Methods:
- A prospective study involving 144 infants (typical and at-risk) was conducted.
- Infants were assessed using the HINT and AIMS at 4-6.5 and 10-12.5 months.
- Motor development was further assessed using the BSID at 2 and 3 years.
Main Results:
- The HINT demonstrated higher predictive correlations than the AIMS for 2- and 3-year BSID motor outcomes across both assessment periods.
- Predictive correlations were consistently stronger for at-risk infants compared to typical infants.
- Categorical predictive analyses showed similar results for both tests.
Conclusions:
- The HINT exhibits predictive validity comparable to the AIMS for infant motor development.
- Both the HINT and AIMS are valuable tools for clinical and research settings in evaluating infant motor skills.
Aim:
We compared abilities of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT), during the infant's first year, in predicting scores on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) at age 2 and 3 years.
Method:
This prospective study involved 144 infants (71 females, 73 males), assessed with the HINT and AIMS at 4 to 6.5 and 10 to 12.5 months and with the BSID at 2 and 3 years. Inclusion criteria for typical infants (n=58) were the following: 38 to 42 weeks' gestation, birthweight at least 2500g, and no congenital anomaly, postnatal health concern, nor major prenatal or perinatal maternal risk factor. For at-risk infants (n=86), inclusion criteria were any of the following: less than 38 weeks' gestation, birthweight less than 2500g, maternal age older than 35 years or younger than 19 years at infant birth, maternal psychiatric/mental health concerns, prenatal drug/alcohol exposure, multiple births, or use of reproductive technology.
Results:
For the overall sample, the early (4-6.5mo) HINT had higher predictive correlations than the AIMS for 2-year BSID-II motor outcomes (r=-0.36 vs 0.26), and 3-year BSID-III gross motor outcomes (r=-0.45 vs 0.31), as did the 10- to 12.5-month HINT (r=-0.55 vs 0.47). Correlations were identical for 10- to 12.5-month HINT and AIMS scores and 3-year BSID-III gross motor (r=-0.58 and 0.58) and fine motor (r=-0.35 and 0.35) subscales. When the sample was divided into typical and at-risk groups, predictive correlations were consistently stronger for the at-risk infants. Categorical predictive analyses were reasonably similar across both tests.
Interpretation:
Results suggest that the HINT has comparable predictive validity to the AIMS and should be considered for use in clinical and research settings.
