ArticlePediatric research2026
Remote assessment of infant motor development: concurrent validity of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale.
Article in Pediatric research, 2026. 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.
- Assessing infant motor development from afar: reflections on remote assessment of infant motor development.Pediatric research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly detection of motor development delays is essential for timely intervention. The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) is a widely used for assessing gross motor development. However, this tool has not been validated for use in telehealth settings. PURPOSE: To investigate the concurrent validity of the AIMS when applied via telehealth and video recording, compared to standard face-to-face assessment. MATERIALS AND
methodA cross-sectional study was conducted with 30 infants (0-18 months). AIMS assessments were performed simultaneously using three modalities: (1) face-to-face, (2) telehealth via synchronous video calls, and (3) video recording using a fixed camera. Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analyses assessed validity and agreement across methods.
resultsAll modalities indicated excellent correlations (r ≥ 0.84, p < 0.001). The Bland-Altman analysis showed low bias and acceptable agreement across all comparisons. No significant differences were found between methods in subscale scores, total scores, or percentile ranks.
conclusionThe AIMS demonstrates strong concurrent validity and agreement when administered via telehealth and video recording. These alternative formats offer clinically reliable options for monitoring infant motor development, especially in contexts where in-person evaluations are impractical. The findings support broader integration of remote developmental surveillance into routine pediatric health systems. IMPACT STATEMENT: Remote administration of the AIMS via telehealth and video recording demonstrates strong validity as a screening tool for early motor development. This modality enhances accessibility, particularly in geographically isolated or resource-limited settings. High inter-method agreement among face-to-face, telehealth, and video-recorded assessments confirms the reliability and consistency of AIMS across modalities. This supports its use in diverse clinical and research contexts without compromising measurement integrity. The multi-modal applicability of AIMS facilitates flexible and scalable service delivery models in pediatric rehabilitation. This adaptability promotes more efficient allocation of clinical resources and broadens the reach of developmental surveillance programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41318796What 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.