Reliability of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) When Used via Telehealth for Neurodevelopmentally High-Risk Infants.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics Pub Date : 2025-01-26 DOI:10.1080/01942638.2025.2451406
Serena Davies, Barbara R Lucas, Genevieve M Dwyer
{"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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
42
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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
期刊最新文献
Equitable Access to Sports: Youth Gymnastics Coaches' Perceptions on Promoting Inclusivity for Athletes with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Reliability of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) When Used via Telehealth for Neurodevelopmentally High-Risk Infants. Effectiveness of Non-Nutritive Sucking on Sucking Performance in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review. Effect of Family-Centered Care Interventions on Motor and Neurobehavior Development of Very Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. A Big Thank You to Annette Majnemer and Welcome to Tatiana Ogourtsova, Coeditor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1