title: Accuracy of Two Motor Assessments during the First Year of Life in Preterm Infants for Predicting Motor Outcome at Preschool Age.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The primary aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and Neuro-Sensory Motor Developmental Assessment (NSMDA) over the first year of life for predicting motor impairment at 4 years in preterm children. The secondary aims were to assess the predictive value of serial assessments over the first year and when using a combination of these two assessment tools in follow-up.
  
  
  METHODS
  Children born <30 weeks' gestation were prospectively recruited and assessed at 4, 8 and 12 months' corrected age using the AIMS and NSMDA. At 4 years' corrected age children were assessed for cerebral palsy (CP) and motor impairment using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children 2nd-edition (MABC-2). We calculated accuracy of the AIMS and NSMDA for predicting CP and MABC-2 scores ≤15th (at-risk of motor difficulty) and ≤5th centile (significant motor difficulty) for each test (AIMS and NSMDA) at 4, 8 and 12 months, for delay on one, two or all three of the time points over the first year, and finally for delay on both tests at each time point.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Accuracy for predicting motor impairment was good for each test at each age, although false positives were common. Motor impairment on the MABC-2 (scores ≤5th and ≤15th) was most accurately predicted by the AIMS at 4 months, whereas CP was most accurately predicted by the NSMDA at 12 months. In regards to serial assessments, the likelihood ratio for motor impairment increased with the number of delayed assessments. When combining both the NSMDA and AIMS the best accuracy was achieved at 4 months, although results were similar at 8 and 12 months.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Motor development during the first year of life in preterm infants assessed with the AIMS and NSMDA is predictive of later motor impairment at preschool age. However, false positives are common and therefore it is beneficial to follow-up children at high risk of motor impairment at more than one time point, or to use a combination of assessment tools.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  ACTR.org.au ACTRN12606000252516.
authors.affiliation: Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
authors.forename: Alicia J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Spittle
authors.affiliation: Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
authors.forename: Katherine J
authors.initials: KJ
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.affiliation: Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
authors.forename: Megan
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Spencer-Smith
authors.affiliation: Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
authors.forename: Lucy E
authors.initials: LE
authors.lastname: Lorefice
authors.affiliation: Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
authors.forename: Peter J
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: Anderson
authors.affiliation: Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
authors.forename: Lex W
authors.initials: LW
authors.lastname: Doyle
mesh_terms: D002657:Child Development; D002675:Child, Preschool; D002658:Developmental Disabilities / Q000175:diagnosis*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D007234:Infant, Premature; D008297:Male; D009048:Motor Skills; D011379:Prognosis; D011446:Prospective Studies