Observational studyRevista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo2013
Cross-cultural analysis of the motor development of Brazilian, Greek and Canadian infants assessed with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale.
Observational study in Revista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychometric properties of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale and culturally adapted or translated versions when used for infant populations internationally: A systematic review.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Cultural Influences on Typical Gross Motor Development in Early Childhood: A Scoping Review.Child: care, health and development · 2026Review
- Validity of the Alberta Infants Motor Scale in Norwegian infants aged 6-9 months through comparison with Canadian and Dutch scores.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- The Use of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) as a Diagnostic Scale for Infants with Autism.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Gross motor skills trajectory variation between WEIRD and LMIC countries: A cross-cultural study.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the motor development of infants from three population samples (Brazil, Canada and Greece), to investigate differences in the percentile curves of motor development in these samples, and to investigate the prevalence of motor delays in Brazilian children.
methodsObservational, descriptive and cross-sectional study with 795 Brazilian infants from zero to 18 months of age, assessed by the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) at day care centers, nurseries, basic health units and at home. The Brazilian infants' motor scores were compared to the results of two population samples from Greece (424 infants) and Canada (2,400 infants). Descriptive statistics was used, with one-sample t-test and binomial tests, being significant p ≤ 0.05.
results65.4% of Brazilian children showed typical motor development, although with lower mean scores. In the beginning of the second year of life, the differences in the motor development among Brazilian, Canadian and Greek infants were milder; at 15 months of age, the motor development became similar in the three groups. A non-linear motor development trend was observed.
conclusionsThe lowest motor percentiles of the Brazilian sample emphasized the need for national norms in order to correctly categorize the infant motor development. The different ways of motor development may be a consequence of cultural differences in infant care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.