Cited by 36Cerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders Research

Evaluating the discriminant validity of the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory: computer adaptive test in children with cerebral palsy

Open access
Shore, Benjamin J., Allar, Benjamin G., Miller, Patricia E., Matheney, Travis H., Snyder, Brian D., Fragala-Pinkham, Maria A.·2017·Physical Therapy

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory-Computer Adaptive Test (PEDI-CAT) is a new clinical assessment for children and youth from birth through 20 years of age. OBJECTIVE: To determine the discriminant validity of the PEDI-CAT according to the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) and Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) in children with cerebral palsy (CP). DESIGN: A prospective convenience cross-sectional sample of 101 school-age children with CP was stratified by GMFCS level. METHODS: Participants were excluded if they underwent recent surgery (<6 months). Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis was used to quantify the discriminant validity of the PEDI-CAT domains to distinguish the level of independence in fine and gross motor function. General linear modeling was used to assess discriminant ability across all GMFCS and MACS levels. RESULTS: Mean age was 11 years, 11 months (SD 3.7). Mobility and Daily Activities domains exhibited excellent discriminant validity distinguishing between ambulatory and nonambulatory participants [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.98 and 0.97, respectively] and the Daily Activities domain exhibited excellent discriminant validity distinguishing between independent and dependent hand function (AUC = 0.93). All PEDI-CAT domains were able to discriminate between ambulatory (GMFCS levels I-III) or nonambulatory (GMFCS levels IV-V) as well as manually independent (MACS levels I-II) or manually dependent functional levels (MACS levels III-V) ( P < .001). LIMITATIONS: Our convenience cross-sectional sample included school-age children with primarily Caucasian, middle-income parents and may not be representative of other cultural, socioeconomic backgrounds. Not all participants had a MACS level assigned, however, no differences were found in PEDI-CAT scores between those with and without MACS scores. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that the PEDI-CAT is a valid outcome instrument for measuring functional abilities in children with CP, able to differentiate across fine and gross motor functional levels.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ptj/pzx033

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Jeevanantham D, Dyszuk E, Bartlett D. The Manual Ability Classification Sys- tem: a scoping review. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2015;27:236-241.
  2. Ohrvall AM, Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Eliasson AC. The stability of the Manual Ability Classification System over time. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2014;56:185-189.
  3. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logis- tic Regression. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-In- terscience, 2000.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shore, B. J., Allar, B. G., Miller, P. E., Matheney, T. H., Snyder, B. D., & Fragala-Pinkham, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Franciscan Hospital for Children (US)
Venue
Physical Therapy
Published
2017-05-16
Volume
97
Issue
6
Pages
669-676
ISSN
  • 0031-9023 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-6724
OpenAlex
W2605094953
Cited by
36
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Botulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Neurogenetic and Muscular Disorders Research
Keywords
cerebral palsy, discriminant validity, Gross Motor Function Classification System, Manual Ability Classification System, motor function assessment, ambulatory status, hand function, functional independence, children and adolescents
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Cerebral Palsy, Child, Cross-Sectional Studies, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Prospective Studies, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Discriminant Analysis, Children with Disabilities, Disabled Children

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review