ArticleThe South African journal of physiotherapy2025
Early gross motor development: Agreement between the AIMS and the BSID-III.
Article in The South African journal of physiotherapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Construct and concurrent validity of test of infants' daily living activities.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early gross motor development is a crucial indicator of overall neurodevelopment. In low- and middle-income countries, lack of accessible assessment tools poses challenges for healthcare professionals evaluating infant neurodevelopment. Objectives: To determine the agreement between the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and Bayley Scales of Infant Development-III (BSID-III) gross motor domain at 6 months and to evaluate the predictive validity of the AIMS at 6 months for identifying severe gross motor delays at 18 months. Method: This nested subgroup study assessed 112 full-term infants using both AIMS and BSID-III at 6 months and BSID-III at 18 months. Agreement between measures was determined using Bland-Altman plots, while predictive validity was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with various cut-off scores. Results: Bland-Altman analysis showed strong agreement between AIMS and BSID-III in the lower-performance range, with bias only in scores above 33. The traditional 10th percentile AIMS cut-off had low sensitivity (27.3%) but high specificity (98%) for predicting delays at 18 months. A modified 23rd percentile cut-off improved sensitivity to 63.6% while maintaining acceptable specificity (81.6%), with a 95.2% negative predictive value (NPV). Conclusion: The AIMS demonstrates strong agreement with BSID-III when identifying potential developmental delays. The proposed 23rd percentile cut-off offers a more balanced screening threshold for this population. Clinical Implications: The AIMS presents a viable alternative to the BSID-III for initial screening in resource-limited settings. The high NPV at the 23rd percentile cut-off makes it useful for ruling out developmental delays.
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.