Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Caregiver-reported newborn term and preterm motor abilities: psychometrics of the PediaTracTM Motor domain

Abstract

Background

Approximately 5–10% of children exhibit developmental deviations in motor skills or other domains; however, physicians detect less than one-third of these abnormalities. Systematic tracking and early identification of motor deviations are fundamental for timely intervention.

Methods

Term and preterm neonates were prospectively assessed at the newborn (NB) period in a study of the psychometric properties of the Motor (MOT) domain of PediaTracTM v3.0, a novel caregiver-based development tracking instrument. Item response theory graded response modeling was used to model item parameters and estimate theta, an index of the latent trait, motor ability. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to examine the dimensionality and factor structure.

Results

In a cohort of 571 caregiver/infant dyads (331 term, 240 preterm), NB MOT domain reliability was high (rho = 0.94). Item discrimination and item difficulty of each of the 15 items could be reliably modeled across the range of motor ability. EFA confirmed that the items constituted a single dimension with second-order factors, accounting for 43.20% of variance.

Conclusions

The latent trait, motor ability, could be reliably estimated at the NB period.

Impact

  • The caregiver-reported Motor domain of PediaTrac provides a reliable estimate of the latent trait of motor ability during the newborn period.

  • This is the first known caregiver-reported instrument that can assess motor ability in the newborn period with high reliability in term and preterm infants.

  • Item response theory methods were employed that will allow for future characterization of developmental subgroups and motor trajectories.

  • The PediaTrac Motor domain can support early identification of at-risk infants.

  • Including caregivers in digital reporting and child-centered monitoring of motor functioning may improve access to care.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Test information curve and reliability curve for the PediaTrac newborn Motor domain.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available yet as this is a longitudinal investigation that is still underway. Upon completion of the longitudinal investigation, the datasets generated during this study will be deposited into the National Database for Autism Research (NDAR).

References

  1. Grantham-McGregor, S. et al. Developmental potential in the first 5 years for children in developing countries. Lancet 369, 60–70 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Almas, A., Degnan, K. A., Nelson, C. A., Zeanah, C. H. & Fox, N. A. IQ at age 12 following a history of institutional care: findings from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project. Dev. Psychol. 52, 1858–1866 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferrari, F. et al. Motor and postural patterns concomitant with general movements are associated with cerebral palsy at term and fidgety age in preterm infants. J. Clin. Med. 8, 1189 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ben-Itzchak, E. & Zachor, D. A. Toddlers to teenagers: long-term follow-up study of outcomes in autism spectrum disorder. Autism 24, 41–50 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Posar, A. & Visconti, P. Long-term outcome of autism spectrum disorder. Turk. Pediatr. Ars. 54, 207–212 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dennis, M. et al. Functional plasticity in childhood brain disorders: when, what, how, and whom to assess Maureen. Neuropsychol. Rev. 24, 389–408 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Scattone, D., Raggio, D. J. & May, W. Comparison of The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, second edition, and the Bayley scales of infant and toddler development, third edition. Psychol. Rep. 109, 626–634 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Beker, L. Principles of growth assessment. Pediatr. Rev. 27, 196–197 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zubler, J. M., et al. Evidence-informed milestones for developmental surveillance tools. Pediatrics. 149, e2021052138. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-052138 (2022).

  10. Allison, K. M., Cordella, C., Iuzzini-Seigel, J. & Green, J. R. Differential diagnosis of apraxia of speech in children and adults: a scoping review. J. Speech Lang. Hear Res. 63, 2952–2994 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brothers, K. B., Glascoe, F. P. & Robertshaw, N. S. PEDS: developmental milestones-an accurate brief tool for surveillance and screening. Clin. Pediatr. (Philos.). 47, 271–279 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bellman, M., Byrne, O. & Sege, R. Developmental assessment of children. BMJ 345, 31–35 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Shevell, M. et al. Evidence Report: genetic and metabolic testing on children with global developmental delay: report of the quality standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society. Neurology 60, 367–380 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Allotey, J. et al. Cognitive, motor, behavioural and academic performances of children born preterm: a meta-analysis and systematic review involving 64 061 children. BJOG Int J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 125, 16–25 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Novak, I. et al. Early, accurate diagnosis and early intervention in cerebral palsy: advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA Pediatr. 171, 897–907 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Romeo, D. M. et al. Early neurological assessment and long-term neuromotor outcomes in late preterm infants: a critical review. Medicina (Kaunas) 56, 1–13 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bayley, N. & Aylward, G. P. Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development 4th edn (NCS Pearson, Inc., Bloomington, MN, 2019).

  18. Mullen, E. M. Mullen Scales of Early Learning (Circle Pines, MN, American Guidance Service Inc. National Research Council, 1995).

  19. Macy, M. L., Huetteman, P. & Kan. K. Changes in primary care visits in the 24 weeks after COVID-19 stay-at-home orders relative to the comparable time period in 2019 in Metropolitan Chicago and Northern Illinois. J. Prim. Care Community Heal. 11, 2150132720969557 (2020).

  20. Lajiness-O’Neill, R., et al. Development and validation of PediaTracTM: a web-based tool to track developing infants. Infant Behav. Dev. 50, 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2018.01.008 (2018).

  21. Lajiness-O’Neill, R. et al. PediaTrac V.3.0 protocol: a prospective, longitudinal study of the development and validation of a web-based tool to measure and track infant and toddler development from birth through 18 months. BMJ Open. 11, e050488 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Squires, J., Bricker, D. & Twombly, E. Ages & Stages Questionnaires: a parent-completed child monitoring system-3 (Baltimore, MD, Brooks Publishing Company, 2009).

  23. da Silva, M. A., de Mendonça Filho, E. J., Mônego, B. G. & Bandeira, D. R. Instruments for multidimensional assessment of child development: a systematic review. Early Child Dev. Care. 190, 1257–1271 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sparrow, S., Cicchetti, D. V. & Saulnier C. A. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale 3rd edn (VABS-3). (San Antonio, TX, Pearson, 2016).

  25. Voress, J. K. & Maddox, T. Developmental Assessment of Young Children 2nd edn (DAYC-2). (Austin, TX, PRO-ED, 2013).

  26. Child Health & Development Interacteractive System (CHADIS). http://www.chadis.com/.

  27. Cella, D. et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med. Care. 45(5 Suppl 1), S3–S11 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Embretson, S. E. & Reise, S. P. Item Response Theory for Psychologists (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2000).

  29. Samejima, F. Graded response model. In Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory (eds van der Linden, W. J. & Hambleton, R. K.) (Springer, New York, NY, 1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2691-6_5

  30. Kamata, A. & Bauer, D. J. A note on the relation between factor analytic and item response theory models. Struct. Equ. Model. 15, 136–153 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Thissen, D. & Orlando, M. Item response theory for items scored in two categories. In Test Scoring 1st edn (eds Thissen, D., Nelson, L., Rosa, K. & McLeod, L. D.) (Routledge, New York, 2001). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410604729

  32. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H. & Jane Rogers, H. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory (Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, CA, 1991).

  33. de Ayala, R. J. The theory and practice of item response theory. Ref. Res. B News. 24, 209–236 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nguyen, T. H., Han, H.-R., Kim, M. T. & Chan, K. S. An introduction to item response theory for patient-reported outcome measurement. Patient 7, 23–35 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (Vienna, Austria, 2020).

  36. Kaiser, H. F. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20, 141–151 (1960).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Depaoli, S., Tiemensma, J. & Felt, J. M. Assessment of health surveys: fitting a multidimensional graded response model. Psychol. Heal Med. 23, 13–31 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gibson, E. Exploratory behavior in the development of perceiving, acting, and the acquiring of knowledge. Annu Rev. Psychol. 39, 1–41 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Adolph, K. E. & Franchak, J. M. The development of motor behavior. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 8, 1–30 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Adolph, K. E., Karasik, L. B. & Tamis-Lemonda, C. S. Motor skill. In: Handbook of Cultural Developmental Science (ed. Bornstein, M. H.) 61–88 (Psychology Press, 2010).

  41. Hopkins, B. & Westra, T. Motor development, maternal expectations, and the role of handling. Infant Behav. Dev. 13, 117–122 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Blauw-Hospers, C. H., de Graaf-Peters, V. B., Dirks, T., Bos, A. F. & Hadders-Algra, M. Does early intervention in infants at high risk for a developmental motor disorder improve motor and cognitive development. Neurosci. Biobehav Rev. 31, 1201–1212 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Hua, J. et al. Early motor milestones in infancy and later motor impairments: a population-based data linkage study. Front Psychiatry 13, 1–11 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Fogel, A., Messinger, K., Dickson, L. & Hsu, H. Posture and gaze in early mother-infant communication: synchronization of developmental trajectories. Dev. Sci. 2, 325–332 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rachwani, J. et al. Segmental trunk control acquisition and reaching in typically developing infants. Exp. brain Res. 228, 131–139 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The investigators express their sincere gratitude to caregivers who participated in the PediaTrac project. We would like to acknowledge the Corner Health Center for their support in helping recruit those with the greatest need.

Funding

This study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number (R01HD095957). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Efforts of S.W. were also supported in part by the Mildred E. Swanson Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Contributions

Conception and design of the study: R.L.-O., T.R., S.W., P.B., A.H.-B., H.G.T., J.C.G.L., J.B., and A.L. Acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data: T.R., P.B., A.D.S., J.C.G.L., R.L.-O., S.W., A.H.-B., and H.G.T.. Drafting and revising the manuscript (original): R.L.-O., T.R., P.B., S.W., A.H.-B., H.G.T., A.S., and J.C.G.L. Final approval: R.L.-O., T.R., P.B., A.H.-B., H.G.T., A.S., J.B., A.L., J.C.G.L., and S.W.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renee Lajiness-O’Neill.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Participant consent was required, with the study approved by the University of Michigan IRB of Record (HUM00151584).

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lajiness-O’Neill, R., Raghunathan, T., Berglund, P. et al. Caregiver-reported newborn term and preterm motor abilities: psychometrics of the PediaTracTM Motor domain. Pediatr Res (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-022-02312-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-022-02312-4

Search

Quick links