ABSTRACT
We examined concurrent validity of scores for two infant motor screening tools, the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT) and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale, in 121 Canadian infants. Relationships between the two tests for the overall sample were as follows: r = -.83 at 4 to 6.5 months (n = 121; p < .01) and r = -.85 at 10 to 12.5 months (n = 109; p < .01), suggesting that the HINT, the newer of the two measures, is valid in determining motor delays. Each test has advantages and disadvantages, and practitioners should determine which one best meets their infant assessment needs.
Subject(s)
Developmental Disabilities/diagnosis , Mass Screening/methods , Motor Skills Disorders/diagnosis , Nursing Assessment/methods , Case-Control Studies , Developmental Disabilities/etiology , Discriminant Analysis , Early Diagnosis , Female , Gestational Age , Humans , Infant , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Mass Screening/standards , Motor Skills Disorders/etiology , Nursing Assessment/standards , Nursing Evaluation Research , Observer Variation , Patient Selection , Pediatric Nursing , Predictive Value of Tests , Psychometrics , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Sensitivity and Specificity , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This article compares traditional psychometric properties (interrater and test-retest reliability, concurrent and predictive validity), clinical epidemiological characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values), and standardization samples of four tests useful to pediatric therapists in screening infants and young children for developmental delays. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS: Pediatric therapists are often involved in screening infants and young children for developmental delay. Ideally, they will use standardized tests that have strong psychometric properties (eg, reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity). The four tests described in this article vary in meeting these criteria. They vary as well in the domains assessed, age ranges for which they are intended, and desired qualifications of the examiners. CONCLUSIONS: Each of the four tests reviewed has identified strengths and weaknesses. Practicing clinicians should select screening tests based on the test's stated purpose, qualifications of the examiner, age range covered, administration and scoring time, developmental domains encompassed, comparability of the standardization sample, and strength of the test's psychometric properties.
