|
Peer-reviewed Publications and Book Chapters
Barbosa VM, Campbell SK, Sheftel D, Singh J, Beligere N. Longitudinal performance of infants with cerebral palsy on the Test of Infant Motor Performance and on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Phys Occup Ther in Pediatr. 2003;23(3):7-29. Demonstrates ability of the TIMP to make early identification of children with CP. FOR FULL ABSTRACT, CLICK HERE
Barbosa VM, Campbell SK, Berbaum M. Discriminating infants from different developmental outcome groups using the Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP) item responses. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2007;19:28-39. Documents differences in rates of development of individual TIMP items in children with cerebral palsy versus groups with typical or delayed development. Eight weeks adjusted age seems to be an important timepoint demonstrating differences in developmental rates in children with CP. FOR FULL ABSTRACT, CLICK HERE Barbosa VM, Campbell SK, Smith E, Berbaum M. Comparison of Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP) item responses among children with cerebral palsy, developmental delay, and typical development. Amer J Occup Ther 2005;59:446-456. Presents a profile of item performance that discriminated 10 children with CP from children with typical or delayed development. Children with CP may present "advanced" performance in items using extension patterns and slow development or regression in items requiring antigravity and balanced use of flexion-extension patterns of muscle activity. FOR FULL ABSTRACT, CLICK HERE
Bernath V. Early intervention in premature infants. [Online}. 2002. Available from http://www.med.monash.edu.au/healthservices/cce
Campbell SK. Test-retest reliability of the Test of Infant Motor Performance. Pediatr Phys Ther. 1999;11:60-66: Documents test-retest reliability for 116 pairs of tests of r = .89 over 3 days; no significant difference between testers.FOR FULL ABSTRACT, CLICK HERE
Campbell SK. The infant at risk for developmental disability. In: Campbell SK, ed. Decision Making in Pediatric Neurologic Physical Therapy. Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone; 1999:260-332: Provides case examples of clinical use of the TIMP to document need for intervention and outcomes of treatment.
Campbell SK. The quest for measurement of infant motor performance. In Refshauge K, Ada L, Ellis E (eds). Science-based Rehabilitation: Theories into Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Butterworth Heinemann; 2005:49-65.
Campbell SK, Hedeker D. Validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance for discriminating among infants with varying risk for poor motor outcome. J Pediatr. 2001;139:546-551: Documents ability of the TIMP to discriminate among infants with varying risk for poor motor performance in early infancy. FOR FULL ABSTRACT, CLICK HERE
Campbell SK, Kolobe THA. Concurrent validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2000;12:1-8: Documents concurrent validity of the TIMP with the AIMS of r = .64 at 3 months adjusted age (AA). FOR FULL TEXT, CLICK HERE
Campbell SK, Kolobe THA, Wright B, Linacre JM. Validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance for prediction of 6-, 9-, and 12-month scores on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2002;44:263-272: Documents sensitivity = .92, specificity = .76, positive predictive validity = .39, and negative predictive validity = .98 for prediction of AIMS performance at 12 months AA from TIMP testing at 3 months AA. FOR FULL ABSTRACT, CLICK HERE
Campbell SK, Kolobe THA, Osten ET, Lenke M, Girolami GL. Construct validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance. Phys Ther. 1995;75:585-596: Documents relationship between age and TIMP test scores for infants from 32 weeks postconceptional age through 3.5 months AA with r = .83. FOR FULL TEXT, CLICK HERE
Campbell SK, Levy P, Zawacki L, Liao P-j. Population-based age standards for interpreting results on the Test of Infant Motor Performance. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2006;18:119-125. Provides age standards for performance on the TIMP based on testing of 990 U.S. infants. High risk infants and Latino/a infants performed less well than infants of other races/ethnicities and infants with lower risk for poor outcome based on perinatal medical complications. FOR FULL ABSTRACT, CLICK HERE
Campbell SK, Swanlund A, Smith E, Liao P-j, Zawacki L. Validity of the TIMPSI for estimating concurrent performance on the Test of Infant Motor Performance. Pediatr Phys Ther 2008;20:3-10. Performance on the TIMP and the TIMPSI were compared at the same age in 990 U.S. infants. A cutscore of -.5 SD on the TIMPSI correctly classified 83.7% of the infants on the TIMP as delayed/not delayed, but the cutscore of -.25 SD produced the best combination of false negatives (5.8%) and false positives (12.5%) and is recommended for use in clinical practice. FOR FULL ABSTRACT, CLICK HERE
Campbell SK, Wright BD, Linacre JM. Development of a functional movement scale for infants. J Applied Meas. 2002;3(2):191-204. Description of use of Rasch analysis to develop Version 4 of the TIMP used in a population-based study of 990 infants in 10 U.S. cities.
Duff SV, Morris C, Stanley CS, Adeniyi-Jones S, Gringlas M, Damle V, Desai S. Neural recovery in infants who sustained perinatal asphyxia and received head cooling. Pediatr Phys Ther 2009;21:106 (abstract). Mean newborn TIMP scores of full term infants with birth asphyxia treated with head cooling was 42 (12th percentile) with 13/21 scoring at <5th percentile. At 3-4 months of age the mean TIMP score was 98 (27th percentile) with 16/21 at or above the 15th percentile. The rate of improvement was better in infants who had 5-minute Apgar scores >4.
Dusing SC, Murray T, Stern M. Parent preferences for motor development education in the neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatr Phys Ther 2008;20:363-368. Demonstrates through use of parent focus groups that observing the Test of Infant Motor Performance is a preferred mode of parent education on infant motor development. Parents who viewed a videotaped TIMP followed by explanation of infant performance and ideas for play had improved knowledge of motor development and were able to describe ways that they would play with their infant. FOR FULL ABSTRACT, CLICK HERE
Finkel RS, Hynan LS, Glanzman AM, Owens H, Nelson L, Cone SR, Campbell SK, Iannaccone ST, and the AmSMART Group. The Test of Infant Motor Performance: Reliability in spinal muscular atrophy type I. Pediatr Phys Ther 2008;20:242-246. FOR FULL ABSTRACT, CLICK HERE
Flegel J, Kolobe THA. Predictive validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance as measured by the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency at school age. Phys Ther 2002;82:762-771. Statistically significant partial correlation between TIMP scores in early infancy and Bruininks at 5 years was .36. Diagnostic validity values were sensitivity=.50, specificity=1.00, positive predictive validity=1.00, and negative predictive validity=.87. FOR FULL TEXT, CLICK HERE
Girolami G, Campbell SK. Efficacy of a Neuro-Developmental Treatment program to improve motor control of preterm infants. Pediatr Phys Ther. 1994;6:175-184. Demonstrates responsivity of the TIMP to effects of NDT provided to high risk premature infants in a controlled clinical trial in the special care nursery. FOR FULL ABSTRACT, CLICK HERE
Goldstein LA, Campbell SK. Effectiveness of the Test of Infant Motor Performance as an educational tool for mothers. Pediatr Phys Ther 2008;20:152-159. Use of the TIMP in a developmental followup clinic was successful in increasing knowledge of premature infant motor development in African-American mothers. Mothers retained information on how to facilitate their baby's development when asked later to recall what they were taught. Use of the pictorial version of the TIMP was not more effective than a text-only version. FOR FULL ABSTRACT, CLICK HERE
Kolobe THA, Bulanda M, Susman L. Predicting motor outcome at preschool age for infants tested at 7, 30, 60, and 90 days after term age using the Test of Infant Motor Performance. Phys Ther 2004;84:1144-1156. Documents sensitivity = .72, specificity = .91, positive predictive validity = .75, and negative predictive validity = .91 for prediction of Peabody Developmental Motor Scales < -2 SD below the mean at preschool age from TIMP testing with a cutoff score of -0.5 SD at 90 days post term. FOR FULL TEXT, CLICK HERE
Lekskulchai R, Cole J. The relationship between the scarf ratio and subsequent motor performance in infants born preterm. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2000;12:150-157: Documents predictability to TIMP scores of a measure of upper extremity muscle tone in premature infants. FOR FULL TEXT, CLICK HERE
Lekskulchai R, Cole J. Effect of a developmental program on motor performance in infants born preterm. Australian J Physiother 2001;47:169-176: Demonstrates responsivity of the TIMP to a home physical therapy program provided in a controlled clinical trial to high risk premature infants upon hospital discharge. The TIMP successfully discriminated a group of infants at hospital discharge who would profit from physical therapy from a group that did not need intervention. FOR FULL TEXT, CLICK HERE
Liao P-j M, Campbell SK. Comparison of two methods for teaching therapists to score the test of Infant Motor Performance. Pediatr Phys Ther 2002;14:191-198. Experiment comparing training approaches to learning to score the TIMP showed that the CD learning program reduced learning time by half with similar resulting rater reliability. FOR FULL TEXT, CLICK HERE
Murney ME, Campbell SK. The ecological relevance of the Test of Infant Motor Performance Elicited Scale items. Phys Ther. 1998;78:479-489: Describes the relationship between caregiver demands for movement placed on infants during naturalistic interactions and the items on the TIMP. FOR FULL TEXT, CLICK HERE
Rose RU, Westcott SL. Responsiveness of the Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP) in infants born preterm. Pediatr Phys Ther 2005;17:219-224. Demonstrates the responsiveness of the TIMP to change in motor performance in preterm infants between 32 and 36 weeks postconceptional age. Fourteen percent of the variance in change scores was related to receipt of therapy services (p = .06); other infant variables were not related to change scores. FOR FULL ABSTRACT, CLICK HERE
Snider LM, Majnemer A, Mazer B, Campbell S, Bos AF. A comparison of the general movements assessment with traditional approaches to newborn and infant assessment: Concurrent validity. Early Hum Dev 2008; 84:297-303. Research examined the relationship between the GM assessment, the TIMP, the Einstein Neonatal Neurobehavioral Assessment Scale, and the AIMS using examinations at three age points: 34 weeks postmenstrual age, term and 12 weeks corrected age. The traditional tests were more strongly correlated with each other than with the GM assessment, documenting unique neurologic construct of the GM assessment. FOR FULL ABSTRACT, CLICK HERE
Snider L, Majnemer A, Mazer B, Campbell S, Bos A. Prediction of motor and functional outcomes in infants born preterm assessed at term. Pediatr Phys Ther 2009;21:2-11. The TIMP at term age in infants born at less than 32 weeks GA predicted outcomes on the Alberta Infant Motor Scales and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-Daily Living Skills (items measure primarily feeding skills) at 12 months adjusted age but the variance explained was very small. Low scores at 12 months on motor and functional outcome measures were related to presence of IVH and extended time on a ventilator. Prediction to outcomes from testing at term is not accurate enough to be useful for making a clinical prognosis about expected development, but test results can be used to make contemporary decisions regarding close followup or intervention for those with high risk for adverse outcomes. FOR FULL ABSTRACT, CLICK HERE
Spittle AJ, Doyle LW, Boyd RN. A systematic review of the clinimetric properties of neuromotor assessments for preterm infants during the first year of life. Dev Med Child Neurol 2008;50:254-266. A systematic review of assessments used to discriminate, predict, or evaluate motor development of preterm infants during the first year of life revealed that, of 18 identified assessments, only the TIMP has demonstrated a difference between groups in response to physical therapy in two randomized controlled clinical trials. Along with the General Movement Assessment and the Movement Assessment of Infants, the TIMP has the best predictive validity in early infancy (at 3-4 months corrected age). FOR FULL ABSTRACT, CLICK HERE
Zawacki L, Campbell S. From observation to rehabilitation. In Cioni G,Mercuri E (eds), Neurological Assessment in the First Two Years of Life. London, MacKeith Press, 2007, pp. 230-245.
Current Research on the TIMP
Current projects include:
1. Use in a clinical trial for children with SMA at Stanford University. FOR INFO, CLICK HERE
2. Use in a clinical trial of a new intervention to promote locomotion in children with perinatal white matter injury.
Biblography of HINT References
Goelman, H. & The CHILD Project (S. R. Harris is one of 22 co-authors). (2008). Three complementary community-based approaches to early identification of young children at risk for developmental delays/disorders. Infants and Young Children, 21, 306-323.
Harris, S.R. (1994). Parents’ and caregivers' perceptions of their children's development. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 36, 918-920.
Harris, S. R. (2009). Congenital hypotonia: Clinical and developmental assessment. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2009 Oct 26 [E-pub ahead of print]
Harris, S. R. (2009). Listening to parents’ concerns: Three case examples of infants with developmental motor delays. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 21, 269-274.
Harris, S. R., Backman, C. L., & Mayson, T. A. (2009). Comparative predictive validity of the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2009 Oct 26 [E-pub ahead of print].
Harris, S. R., & Daniels, L. (1996). Content validity of the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test. Physical Therapy, 76, 727-737.
Harris, S. R. & Daniels, L. E. (2001). Reliability and validity of the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test. Journal of Pediatrics, 139, 249-253.
Harris, S.R., Megens, A., Backman, C. L., & Hayes, V. E. (2003). Development and standardization of the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test. Infants and Young Children, 14, 143-151.
Mayson, T. A., Backman, C. L., Harris, S. R., & Hayes, V. E. (2009). Motor development in Canadian infants of Asian and European ethnic origins. Journal of Early Intervention, 31, 199-214.
Lee, L. L. S., & Harris, S. R. (2005). Psychometric properties and standardization samples of four screening tests for infants and young children: A review. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 17, 140-147.
McCoy, S.W., Bowman, A., Smith-Blockley, J., Sanders, K., Megens A. M., & Harris, S. R. (2009). Harris Infant Neuromotor Test: comparison of US and Canadian normative data and concurrent validity with the Ages and Stages Questionnaire. Physical Therapy, 89, 173-180.
Megens, A. M., Harris, S. R., Backman, C. L., & Hayes, V. E. (2007). Known-groups analysis of the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test. Physical Therapy, 87, 164-169.
Ravenscroft, E. F., & Harris, S. R. (2007). Is maternal education related to infant motor development? Pediatric Physical Therapy, 19, 56-61.
Scher, A., Tse, L., Hayes, V. E., & Tardif, M. (2008). Sleep difficulties in infants at risk for developmental delay: A longitudinal study. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 33, 396-405.
Tse, L., Mayson, T. A., Leo, S., Lee, L. L. S., Harris, S. R., Hayes, V. E., Backman, C. L., Cameron, D., & Tardif, M. (2008). Concurrent validity of the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 23, 28-36.
|