The United States reference values of the Bayley III motor scale are suitable in Suriname

Maria Jaj Fleurkens-Peeters1, Wilco Cwr Zijlmans2, Reinier P Akkermans3

  • 1Academic Hospital Paramaribo, Department of Rehabilitation, Pediatric Physical Therapy, Paramaribo, Suriname; Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ healthcare, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

PubMed

Insights

The Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development motor scale reference values from the United States are largely suitable for Surinamese infants. Minor differences were observed but were not clinically significant for developmental assessments.

Area of Science:

  • Pediatrics
  • Developmental Psychology
  • Motor Development Assessment

Background:

  • Accurate developmental assessment relies on culturally relevant normative data.
  • The Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, version III (Bayley-III) motor scale is widely used globally.
  • The applicability of US-derived Bayley-III motor norms to diverse infant populations requires validation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the suitability of US reference values for the Bayley-III motor scale in Surinamese infants.
  • To compare motor development scores of Surinamese infants with established US norms.

Main Methods:

  • A cohort of 151 healthy Surinamese infants was assessed.
  • Infants were evaluated at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months of age.
  • Fine motor, gross motor, and composite scores were analyzed against US norms.

Main Results:

  • Overall mean scores for fine motor, gross motor, and composite measures did not significantly differ from US norms.
  • Statistically significant differences were noted but deemed not clinically relevant.
  • Specific findings included lower fine motor scores at 12 months and lower gross motor/composite scores at 24 months.

Conclusions:

  • The US reference values for the Bayley-III motor scale demonstrate general applicability to Surinamese infants.
  • While minor statistical deviations exist, they do not appear to impact clinical interpretation.
  • Further research may explore localized normative data if clinically significant discrepancies arise.