ArticleDevelopmental medicine and child neurology2026
Synchronous telehealth and face-to-face administration of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale.
Article in Developmental medicine and child neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acceptability of telehealth-delivered Alberta Infant Motor Scale for Australian parents: A mixed-methods analysis.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2026Article
- Gross motor performance of infants with an at-home wearable measurement and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale: A concurrent validity study.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2026Observational
- Reliability of the Telehealth Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination at 24 Months: A Prospective Counterbalanced Observational Study.Pediatric neurology · 2026Observational
- Assessing infant motor development from afar: reflections on remote assessment of infant motor development.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Telehealth Delivery of the Homeostasis-Enrichment-Plasticity Approach for Premature Infants With Developmental Risks: Exploratory Feasibility Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Synchronous telehealth and face-to-face administration of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo determine the agreement between the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), when delivered via synchronous telehealth compared with face-to-face administration to assess gross motor development of infants.
methodIn this prospective cross-sectional study, 123 infants (gestational age: mean 38.8 weeks (SD 1.8); range 31-42 weeks; male n = 65) were assessed at 4 months, 8 months, or 12 months old with two AIMS assessments: face-to-face and via synchronous telehealth. The agreement between the assessments was examined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland-Altman method with 95% limits of agreement.
resultsAgreement between AIMS assessments administered face-to-face and via synchronous telehealth had an overall ICC of 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98, 0.99) and within age group: 4 months ICC 0.72 (95% CI 0.58, 0.83), 8 months ICC 0.97 (95% CI 0.96, 0.98), and 12 months ICC 0.98 (95% CI 0.96, 0.99).
interpretationThe AIMS assessment delivered via synchronous telehealth shows excellent agreement with face-to-face assessment. Telehealth is a good alternative to face-to-face AIMS assessment, particularly for older infants.
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.