Factors influencing gross motor development in young children in an urban child welfare system

Adaptation of babies in three types of placement: An ethological approach

The present pilot study focuses on the adaptive processes of babies who are placed during their first months of life. It used an ethological approach to explore the behavioural adjustment of 19 infants from their arrival in placement through their first 6 weeks in Residential Care (RC; France), a Foster Family (FF; Québec) or an Infant-Mother Centre (IMC; Québec). Direct observations were conducted once a week during feeding sessions. Observed behaviours were as follows: sleep-wake state, self-soothing, burp, visual exploration, motor activity, facial and vocal expressions. Then, a Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to examine differences in babies' adaption as a function of placement setting. Results showed that, in RC, the duration of the post-feeding phase is the shortest. Moreover, these institutionalized babies showed the most modes of self-protection and the fewest vocalizations. By contrast, babies placed in the IMC spent the least time in withdrawal, expressed motor activity more regularly and were never placed back in their recliner before burping. Larger differences appear comparing placement in RC and that in the IMC, the placement in FF showing intermediate results.

Cultural translation and adaptation of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale Thai version

BACKGROUND

The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) is a widely used screening tool used to measure gross-motor maturation for clinical and research usage in various countries. A cross-cultural translation and adaptation process is essential to produce reliable and applicable translated assessment tools.

AIMS

The purposes of this cross-sectional study were to obtain the Alberta Infant Motor Scale Thai version and to determine its reliability, validity, and applicability.

METHODS

The process of translation and cultural adaptation of the AIMS Thai version was performed. The conceptual, semantic, and idiomatic equivalences of the language of the AIMS Thai version were strictly reviewed by committee. The intra-rater/inter-rater reliabilities and concurrent validity with the Bayley III were examined in 30 full-term typically developing infants. Then, 19 infants from an orphanage and 23 typically developing infants were assessed using the final translated version of the AIMS.

RESULTS

The AIMS Thai version was generated systematically. Two therapists showed high intra-rater reliability using the Thai AIMS with an ICC of 0.995 (95% CI 0.989-0.998) and 0.979 (95%CI 0.919-0.992), and the inter-rater reliability was 0.988 (95%CI 0.976-0.994). The concurrent validity of the AIMS Thai version and the Bayley III was 0.969 (p < 0.01). The AIMS percentile of gross-motor development of orphaned infants (94.7%) were equal or lower than the 5th percentile, while the AIMS percentile of home-raised infants ranged from the 5th to the 90th percentile.

CONCLUSION

The translated and adapted AIMS Thai version is reliable and valid to use in Thai infants.

Early developmental milestones and age of independent walking in orphans compared with typical home-raised infants

AIM

Early gross motor development is a major indicator of global milestones in the first year of life, affecting the walking ability of a child. There has been limited research reporting on early motor development and the age of independent walking of orphaned infants compared to typical home-raised infants. The purpose of this study was to compare the mean scores of early gross motor movement at 4, 6 and 8months of age and at the age of walking attainment of typically raised infants and orphaned infants. In addition, we looked to compare the walking age between these same infants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study recruited 59 typical home-raised infants and 62 orphans. Their gross motor development was assessed using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). The age of walking attainment was also prospectively monitored and ascertained. The Student's independent t-test was used to analyse the differences of the AIMS scores at 4, 6 and 8months of age and at the age of independent walking between the two groups.

RESULTS

The orphans showed significantly lower AIMS scores at 4, 6 and 8months of age and the age of independent walking (P-value<0.05). The orphan group had a 5-month older mean age of walking attainment (15.0±4.2months) compared with typical home-raised infants (9.9±1.4months).

CONCLUSION

Orphans have delays in early gross motor development and walk independently at an older age, compared with home-raised infants.

Classifying infants and toddlers with developmental vulnerability: who is most likely to receive early intervention?

BACKGROUND

Infants and toddlers with developmental difficulties represent a heterogeneous group who often receives early intervention (EI). Notable population heterogeneity exists and complicates unmet need and effectiveness research. However, a mix of relatively homogeneous clinically policy relevant 'subgroups' may create the apparent heterogeneity. To date, methodological challenges have impeded identifying these potential groups and their policy-relevance.

METHODS

From the 2005-2006 National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs, we derived a sample (n = 965) of infants and toddlers with parent-reported developmental difficulties. We used latent class analysis (LCA) to identify subgroups of developmental vulnerability based upon functional, social and biological characteristics that would make children eligible for EI. Mixture modelling estimated the likelihood of each subgroup receiving parent-reported EI, controlling for race/ethnicity, child's age, and state of residence.

RESULTS

LCA identified four distinct subgroups of developmental vulnerability: developmental disability (Group 1), mild developmental delay (Group 2), socially at risk with behaviour problems (Group 3), and socially at risk with functional vision difficulties (Group 4). Black, non-Hispanic children are significantly more likely than their white counterparts to be in Group 3 (β = 1.52, P = 0.001) or group 4 (β = 1.83, P < 0.001). Compared with children with a mild developmental delay (Group 2), children in group 1 (β = -0.61, P < 0.001), group 3 (β = -0.47, P = 0.001) and group 4 (β = -0.38, P = 0.009) are significantly less likely to receive EI.

CONCLUSIONS

Racial and ethnic differences exist with regard to membership in developmental vulnerability subgroups. Observed inconsistencies in access to EI suggest the need for improved surveillance, referral and outreach.