{"title":"Reliability of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) When Used via Telehealth for Neurodevelopmentally High-Risk Infants.","authors":"Serena Davies, Barbara R Lucas, Genevieve M Dwyer","doi":"10.1080/01942638.2025.2451406","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To assess the reliability of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) when conducted <i>via</i> recorded telehealth sessions by novice and expert raters.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten assessors (six novice, four expert) independently rated recorded telehealth assessments of 23 neurodevelopmentally high-risk infants twice. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of subscale scores, total score and percentile rankings were determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>AIMS total score inter-rater reliability was excellent across all raters (ICC = 0.92-0.96). Inter-rater-reliability across prone, supine and sitting subscale scores was excellent (ICC = 0.90-0.96) but variable for standing subscale (ICC = 0.06-0.65). Novice total score intra-rater reliability was variable (ICC = 0.45-0.94); expert reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.93-1.00). Recording to real-time telehealth assessment had excellent intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.96). Time taken to complete the assessment was comparable to a face-to-face assessment (mean: 14.9 min). Novices paused/replayed each video more than experts (2.2 compared to 1.0 in Time 1; and 1.0 compared to 0.5 in Time 2).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The AIMS assessment is reliable when undertaken <i>via</i> telehealth consultation. Time taken to complete the assessment is comparable to a face-to-face assessment. Novice inter-rater reliability was similar to experts. Training and the ability to pause/review infant motor performance may explain the accuracy achieved.</p>","PeriodicalId":49138,"journal":{"name":"Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01942638.2025.2451406","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: To assess the reliability of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) when conducted via recorded telehealth sessions by novice and expert raters.
Methods: Ten assessors (six novice, four expert) independently rated recorded telehealth assessments of 23 neurodevelopmentally high-risk infants twice. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of subscale scores, total score and percentile rankings were determined.
Results: AIMS total score inter-rater reliability was excellent across all raters (ICC = 0.92-0.96). Inter-rater-reliability across prone, supine and sitting subscale scores was excellent (ICC = 0.90-0.96) but variable for standing subscale (ICC = 0.06-0.65). Novice total score intra-rater reliability was variable (ICC = 0.45-0.94); expert reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.93-1.00). Recording to real-time telehealth assessment had excellent intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.96). Time taken to complete the assessment was comparable to a face-to-face assessment (mean: 14.9 min). Novices paused/replayed each video more than experts (2.2 compared to 1.0 in Time 1; and 1.0 compared to 0.5 in Time 2).
Conclusions: The AIMS assessment is reliable when undertaken via telehealth consultation. Time taken to complete the assessment is comparable to a face-to-face assessment. Novice inter-rater reliability was similar to experts. Training and the ability to pause/review infant motor performance may explain the accuracy achieved.
期刊介绍:
5 issues per year
Abstracted and/or indexed in: AMED; British Library Inside; Child Development Abstracts; CINAHL; Contents Pages in Education; EBSCO; Education Research Abstracts (ERA); Education Resources Information Center (ERIC); EMCARE; Excerpta Medica/EMBASE; Family and Society Studies Worldwide; Family Index Database; Google Scholar; HaPI Database; HINARI; Index Copernicus; Intute; JournalSeek; MANTIS; MEDLINE; NewJour; OCLC; OTDBASE; OT SEARCH; Otseeker; PEDro; ProQuest; PsycINFO; PSYCLINE; PubsHub; PubMed; REHABDATA; SCOPUS; SIRC; Social Work Abstracts; Speical Educational Needs Abstracts; SwetsWise; Zetoc (British Library); Science Citation Index Expanded (also known as SciSearch®); Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition; Social Sciences Citation Index®; Journal Citation Reports/ Social Sciences Edition; Current Contents®/Social and Behavioral Sciences; Current Contents®/Clinical Medicine