Cited by 372Infant Development and Preterm CareChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systematic review of the clinimetric properties of neuromotor assessments for preterm infants during the first year of life

Open access
Spittle, Alicia J, Doyle, Lex W, Boyd, Roslyn N·2008·Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology

Abstract

This systematic review evaluates assessments used to discriminate, predict, or evaluate the motor development of preterm infants during the first year of life. Eighteen assessments were identified; nine met the inclusion criteria. The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), Bayley Scale of Infant and Toddler Development ‐ Version III, Peabody Developmental Motor Scales ‐ Version 2, Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP), and Toddler and Infant Motor Examination have good discriminative validity when examined in large populations. The AIMS, Prechtl's Assessment of General Movements (GMs), Neuro Sensory Motor Development Assessment (NSMDA), and TIMP were designed for preterm infants and are able to detect more subtle changes in movement quality. The best predictive assessment tools are age dependent: GMs, the Movement Assessment of Infants, and TIMP are strongest in early infancy (age 4mo or less) and the AIMS and NSMDA are better at older ages (8‐12mo). The TIMP is the only tool that has demonstrated a difference between groups in response to intervention in two randomized controlled trials. The AIMS, TIMP, and GMs demonstrated the highest levels of overall reliability (interrater and intrarater intraclass correlation coefficient or κ>0.85). Selection of motor assessment tools during the first year of life for infants born preterm will depend on the intended purpose of their use for discrimination, prediction, and/or evaluation.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.02025.x

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 72 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Folio MR, 2000, Peabody Developmental Scales
  2. Campbell SK., 2001, The Test of Infant Motor Performance: Test User's Manual Version 1.4
  3. Miller LJ, 1994, The TIME Toddler and Infant Motor Evaluation: A Standardized Assessment
  4. Chandler LS, 1980, Movement Assessment of Infants: A Manual
  5. Campbell SK., 2005, The Test of Infant Motor Performance
  6. Knobloch H, 1987, Manual of Developmental Diagnosis: the Adminstration and Interpretation of the Revised Gesell and Amartuda Developmental and Neurologic Examination
  7. Griffiths R., 1970, The Abilities of Young Children: A Comprehensive System of Mental Measurement for the First Eight Years
  8. Frankenburg WK, 1990, Denver II
  9. Swanson M W., 1989, Neuromotor assessment of low‐birth weight infants with normal developmental outcome, Dev Med Child Neurol, 31, 27
  10. Bayley N., 1969, Bayley Scales of Infant Development
  11. Bayley N., 1993, The Bayley Scales of Infant Development

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 371

Metadata

Authors
Spittle, A. J., Doyle, L. W., & Boyd, R. N.
Affiliations
  • Murdoch Children's Research Institute (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Venue
Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-01-08
Volume
50
Issue
4
Pages
254-266
ISSN
  • 0012-1622 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8749
OpenAlex
W2095499440
Cited by
372
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 20
FWCI
1.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2008-09-17)
Open access
Locations
  • Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council (284512)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Development and Preterm Care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Children's Physical and Motor Development
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Keywords
preterm infants, neuromotor assessment, motor development, clinimetric properties, discriminant validity, predictive validity, inter-rater reliability, Alberta Infant Motor Scale, Test of Infant Motor Performance, General Movements Assessment, Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, first year of life
MeSH terms
Brain Damage, Chronic, Cerebral Palsy, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Low Birth Weight, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Premature, Diseases, Male, Movement Disorders, Neurologic Examination, Prognosis, Psychomotor Disorders, Reproducibility of Results

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