Agreement of synchronous remote and in-person application of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale: Cohort study

IntroductionUsing standardized scales to assess motor development via telemedicine can increase access for low-income populations. Our aim was to verify the agreement and feasibility between remotely and synchronously applying the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and the in-person format.MethodsThis was a concordance study, with 77 typical infants aged 4-18 months (mean = 13 months). The AIMS was applied remote via video calls and face-to-face. We applied a questionnaire to caregivers to verify feasibility.ResultsThere was a high level of agreement between the remote and in-person assessments, with intraclass correlation coefficients above 0.98 and low standard error measure values (<1 item for each posture, <2 items for the total raw score, and =5% for the normative score). The smallest detectable change was between 1.67 and 2.45 for each posture, 3 for the total raw score, and 6% for the normative score. The Bland-Altman analysis showed low bias with the mean difference close to zero (<0.80) and low error with little dispersion of the difference points around the mean. Caregivers' perspectives on the synchronous remote assessment were positive, with good quality, clear information during the assessment, and comfort with the method.DiscussionThe synchronous remote application of the AIMS may be an alternative for families without access to in-person services that assess motor development.