進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-0209201400133700
論文名稱(中文) 整體動作評估的信度和同時效度
論文名稱(英文) Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the Assessment of General Movements
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 物理治療學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Physical Therapy
學年度 102
學期 2
出版年 103
研究生(中文) 饒曼平
研究生(英文) Man-Ping Rau
學號 T66014064
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 86頁
口試委員 指導教授-徐碧真
口試委員-成戎珠
口試委員-林永傑
中文關鍵字 整體動作  再測信度  受測者間信度  同時效度  嬰兒 
英文關鍵字 General movements  Intra-rater reliability  Inter-rater reliability  Concurrent validity  Infants 
學科別分類
中文摘要 背景和目的:過去文獻探討整體動作評估(Assessment of General Movements)信度和效度的結果有些不一致。因此,本研究目的有兩個。第一、探討整體動作評估的再測和受測者間信度,且討論類別評分和二分法是否有差異。第二、比較整體動作評估在不同的動作時期,分別與摩根或漢默史密斯新生兒神經行為評估、阿爾伯塔嬰幼兒動作評估量表或皮巴迪動作發展量表第二版的同時效度。
方法:本研究共招募64位有發展遲緩危險因子(實驗組)和20位正常足月產的新生兒(控制組)。受試者分別在整體動作的三個時期(早產、扭動運動和不安運動時期)拍攝動作影片。共收集148和237個影片分別進行信度和同時效度的分析。影片拍攝同時,受試者在足月前,使用摩根新生兒神經行為評估;在足月至妊娠週數48週,使用漢默史密斯新生兒神經行為評估;在足月至妊娠週數60週,使用阿爾伯塔嬰幼兒動作評估量表;在妊娠週數49至60週,使用皮巴迪動作發展量表第二版。整體動作品質在早產和扭動運動時期分為正常、單調性、痙攣同步性和混亂性;不安運動時期分為正常、異常性及不安運動缺乏。所有影片用類別方式評分,進行分析時再將分數二分為正常和不正常兩類。受測者間信度是比較三位物理治療師間的一致性,再測信度是比較一個月後再測的一致性。在信度分析,使用百分比和Cohen’s Kappa係數分析整體動作評估使用類別評分法的信度,二分法則是用百分比和Prevalence Adjusted and Biased Adjusted Kappa(PABAK)係數進行分析。在同時效度分析,使用百分比和Cramer’s V相關係數探討不同評估工具間的相關性。
結果和討論:整體動作評估類別分法的再測信度為一般(Fair)至中度(Moderate)相關,平均百分比為69%,而受測者間信度為低(Low)至一般相關,平均百分比為54%;二分法的再測信度為尚可至高度(Substantial)相關,平均百分比為78%,而受測者間信度平均為低至一般相關,平均百分比為67%。整體而言,此評估的信度尚可,可能與幾項因素有關。第一點,未參加正式訓練課程的評估者的訓練不足。第二點,練習的影片太少,使未參加正式訓練課程的評估者經驗不足而缺少信心。第三點,20%的影片拍攝時間在整體動作的轉換時期(36至38週與46至48週),增加影片的困難度。第四點,信度研究的評估流程與之前不同(三人同時看影片評估、每次評估的時間、第一次和第二次評估間的間隔)。同時效度結果顯示,與傳統神經行為發展評估比較時為低相關,因早產和新生兒早期的嬰兒生理狀況不穩定使工具的信度難施測或偏低,進而影響效度的能力。與同樣以觀察方式為主的區辨性評估-阿爾伯塔嬰幼兒動作評估比較時為中度相關。與皮巴迪動作發展量表第二版比較時為尚可相關,且其精細動作發展商數(FMQ)與整體動作的相關性比粗大動作發展商數(GMQ)高,與過去文獻已證實的不安運動動作品質與精細動作發展相關相呼應。
結論:本研究發現其整體動作評估信度為尚可,表示評估者需要增加討論和練習。並建議在早產和扭動運動兩個時期使用二分法評估,在不安運動時期使用類別分法評估。另外,當整體動作評估和不同工具比較時,其同時效度也不同。但此研究各時期的嬰兒年齡差異大,建議未來可選擇特定年紀的嬰兒進一步探討效度。
英文摘要 Background and Purpose: The results by previous studies which examined the reliability and validity of The assessment of general movements (GMsA) were inconsistent. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the intra- and inter-rater reliability of GMsA in categorical and dichotomous ratings ,and concurrent validity of GMsA in comparison with the Morgan (MNNE) or Hammersmith Neonatal Neurobehavioral examination (HNNE), the Alberta Infants Motor Scale (AIMS), and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales 2nd (PDMS-Ⅱ) on infants with term, typical development and high risk of developmental disorders.
Methods: Sixty four high risk (experimental group) and 20 normal infants (control group) were recruited. There were a total of 148 and 237 recordings to determine reliability and concurrent validity, respectively. Spontaneous movements were recorded in preterm, writhing, and fidgety period, respectively. The recording time was about 1 hour in preterm period, and at least 15 minutes in writhing and fidgety period. At the time of recording, each infant were assessed with one or two assessment tools to determine concurrent validities. At preterm age, MNNE were assessed. At age of 38 to 42 weeks gestational age (GA), HNNE was assessed. From term age to 60 weeks GA, AIMS was assessed. At age of 49 to 60 weeks GA, PDMS-II was assessed. The quality of GMs was classified as normal, poor repertoire, chaotic, and cramped-synchronized general movements in preterm and writhing period, and normal, abnormal and absent fidgety movements in fidgety period. All recordings were assessed by categorical rating, and further classified to dichotomous rating for analysis. The inter-rater reliability examined the agreements between three physical therapists, and the intra-rater reliability examined the agreements on the same recording after one month later. Percentage of agreement and Cohen’s kappa were used to examine the reliability in categorical rating, and the percentage of agreement and Prevalence Adjusted and Biased Adjusted Kappa (PABAK) was used to determine the reliability in dichotomous rating. Percentage of agreement and Cramer’s V correlation coefficient were used to determine the correlations between GMsA and concurrent examinations.
Results and Discussions: The results showed that the intra- and inter-rater reliabilities were fair to moderate (mean percentage: 69%) and low to fair (mean percentage: 54%) in categorical rating, respectively, and fair to substantial (mean percentage: 78%) and low to fair (mean percentage: 67%) in dichotomous rating, respectively. The agreements within or between raters in this study were not good due to several possible reasons. First, the training method by the conception of seed teacher, self-learning and discussions were insufficient. Second, few recordings for practice caused that raters were lack of confidence in using the assessment. Third, twenty percentage of recordings was in the transition phase of GMs and caused of increasing the difficulty of assessing. Fourth, the procedure (assessing together, time of each assessment and duration between first and second rating) was different from previous studies. The concurrent validities of GMsA were various in comparison with different examinations. The correlation between GMsA and MNNE or HNNE were low. It might be cause by limited reliability of neonatal examinations because of fragile and unstable infants in preterm life and early infancy. The correlation between GMsA and the AIMS were moderate and highest in comparison to other examinations. The correlation between GMsA and PDMS-II was fair. The results also showed that the correlation between GMsA and fine motor quotient of PDMS-II was higher than between GMsA and gross motor quotient of PDMS-II. It agreed with the results of previous study which found that fidgety movements related to later fine motor development.
Conclusions: The results indicated the reliabilities of GMsA were general fair and more discussion and practices for the raters who did not attend training course was needed. The concurrent validities with other assessment tools were various. The correlations between GMsA and other examinations were various. However, the age of the participants in each period was various in this study. Further research could examine the concordance with other examinations at a certain age.
論文目次 中文摘要
Abstract

Chapter 1 The Research Objective 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Purpose 7
1.3 Specific aims 8
1.4 Definitions 8
1.5 Delimitations 9
1.6 Significances of the study 10

Chapter 2 Literature Review 12
2.1 Neuronal Group Selection Theory (NGST) 12
2.2 Reliability of GMsA 13
2.2.1 Intra-rater reliability 13
2.2.2 Inter-rater reliability 14
2.3 Concurrent validity of GMsA 17
2.4 Predictive power of GMsA 19
2.4.1 Cerebral palsy (CP) 19
2.4.2 Minor neurological dysfunction (MND) 21
2.4.3 Behavior problems 22
2.4.4 Cognition disorders 24
2.4.5 Genetic disorders 25
2.4.5.1 Down syndrome (DS) 25
2.4.5.2 Rett disorder (RTT) 26

Chapter 3 Methodology 28
3.1 The setting 28
3.2 Research design 28
3.3 Participants 28
3.4 Instruments 30
3.5 Procedure 34
3.5.1 Data collection of recordings and concurrent
examinations 34
3.5.2 Assessment of the GMs 36
3.6 Statistical Analysis 37

Chapter 4 Results 39
4.1 Reliability 39
4.1.1 Intra-rater reliability 40
4.1.2 Inter-rater reliability 45
4.2 Concurrent validity 50
4.2.1 Preterm period 51
4.2.2 Writhing period 53
4.2.3 Fidgety period 54

Chapter 5 Discussions 57
5.1 Reliability 58
5.1.1 Practices 59
5.1.2 Training 61
5.1.3 Recordings in transition phase of spontaneous
movements 63
5.1.4 Procedures 63
5.2 Concurrent validity 67
5.2.1 Preterm period 69
5.2.2 Writhing period 69
5.2.3 Fidgety period 71
5.3 Limitations 74

Chapter 6 Conclusions 76

Reference 78
參考文獻 1. Lee P-C, Kuo S-C, Teng S-W, Lu T-H, Li C-Y. 台灣地區嬰兒出生體重與妊娠週數分佈之長期變化趨勢. 臺灣公共衛生雜誌. 2003;22 (5):376 - 385.
2. Kessenich M. Developmental outcomes of premature, low birth weight, and medically fragile infants. Newborn Infant. Nurs. Rev. 2003;3(3):80-87.
3. Buonocore G, Bracci R, Weindling M. Neonatology: a Practical Approach to Neonatal Diseases. Springer; 2011.
4. Burger M, Louw QA. The predictive validity of general movements-a systematic review. Eur. J. Paediatr. Neurol. Sep 2009;13(5):408-420.
5. Noble Y, Boyd R. Neonatal assessments for the preterm infant up to 4 months corrected age: a systematic review. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2012;54(2):129-139.
6. Cioni G, Prechtl HF. Preterm and early postterm motor behaviour in low-risk premature infants. Early Hum. Dev. 1990;23(3):159-191.
7. Prechtl HF. Qualitative changes of spontaneous movements in fetus and preterm infant are a marker of neurological dysfunction. Early Hum. Dev. Sep 1990;23(3):151-158.
8. Einspieler C, Prechtl HF. Prechtl's assessment of general movements: a diagnostic tool for the functional assessment of the young nervous system. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2005;11(1):61-67.
9. Christa Einspieler HFP, Arend F Bos, Fabrizo Ferrari & Giovanni Cioni. Prechtl's Method on the Qualitative Assessment of General Movements in Preterm, Term and Young Infants. Mac Keith Press; 2008.
10. Hadders‐Algra M. The assessment of general movements is a valuable technique for the detection of brain dysfunction in young infants. A review. Acta Paediatr. 1996;85(s416):39-43.
11. Hadders-Algra M. Evaluation of motor function in young infants by means of the assessment of general movements_a review. Pediatr. Phys. Ther. Spring 2001;13(1):27-36.
12. Zuk L. Fetal and infant spontaneous general movements as predictors of developmental disabilities. Dev. Disabil. Res. Rev. 2011;17(2):93-101.
13. Hadders-Algra M. Early brain damage and the development of motor behavior in children clues for therapeutic intervention. Neural. Plast. 2001;8(1-2):31-49.
14. Spittle AJ, Brown NC, Doyle LW, et al. Quality of general movements is related to white matter pathology in very preterm infants. Pediatr. Neonatol. 2008;121(5):e1184-e1189.
15. Bernhardt I, Marbacher M, Hilfiker R, Radlinger L. Inter-and intra-observer agreement of Prechtl's method on the qualitative assessment of general movements in preterm, term and young infants. Ear Hum Dev. 2011;87(9):633-639.
16. Cioni G, Ferrari F, Einspieler C, Paolicelli PB, Barbani T, Prechtl HF. Comparison between observation of spontaneous movements and neurologic examination in preterm infants. J Pediatr. 1997;130(5):704-711.
17. Paro-Panjan D, Sustersic B, Neubauer D. Comparison of two methods of neurologic assessment in infants. Pediatr. Neurol. 2005;33(5):317-324.
18. 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(5):297-303.
19. Manacero SA, Marschik PB, Nunes ML, Einspieler C. Is it possible to predict the infant's neurodevelopmental outcome at 14months of age by means of a single preterm assessment of General Movements? Early Hum. Dev. 2012;88(1):39-43.
20. Sanders LD. Discovering Research Methods in Psychology: A Student's Guide. John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
21. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: a Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Oxford university press; 2008.
22. Blauw-Hospers CH, Hadders-Algra M. A systematic review of the effects of early intervention on motor development. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. Jun 2005;47(6):421-432.
23. Ferrari F, Todeschini A, Guidotti I, et al. General movements in full-term infants with perinatal asphyxia are related to Basal Ganglia and thalamic lesions. J. Pediatr. Jun 2011;158(6):904-911.
24. Hadders‐Algra M. The neuronal group selection theory: a framework to explain variation in normal motor development. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2000;42(8):566-572.
25. Hadders-Algra M. The neuronal group selection theory: promising principles for understanding and treating developmental motor disorders. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2000;42(10):707-715.
26. De Vries J, Visser G, Prechtl HF. The emergence of fetal behaviour. I. Qualitative aspects. Early Hum. Dev. 1982;7(4):301-322.
27. 楊紅. 腦癱兒的超早期篩查技術︰全身運動評估在中國的研究進展. 上海科學普及出版社; 2010.
28. Mutlu A, Einspieler C, Marschik PB, Livanelioglu A. Intra-individual consistency in the quality of neonatal general movements. Neonatol. 2007;93(3):213-216.
29. van Kranen-Mastenbroek V, van Oostenbrugge R, Palmans L, et al. Inter-and intra-observer agreement in the assessment of the quality of spontaneous movements in the newborn. Brain Dev. 1992;14(5):289-293.
30. Geerdink J, Hopkins B. Qualitative changes in general movements and their prognostic value in preterm infants. Eur. J. Pediatr. 1993;152(4):362-367.
31. Albers S, Jorch G. Prognostic significance of spontaneous motility in very immature preterm infants under intensive care treatment. Neonatol. 1994;66(4):182-187.
32. Cioni G, Prechtl HF, Ferrari F, Paolicelli PB, Einspieler C, Federica Roversi M. Which better predicts later outcome in fullterm infants: quality of general movements or neurological examination? Early Hum. Dev. 1997;50(1):71-85.
33. Bos AF, van Loon AJ, Hadders-Algra M, Martijn A, Okken A, Prechtl HF. Spontaneous motility in preterm, small-forgestational age infants II. Qualitative aspects. Early Hum. Dev. 1997;50(1):131-147.
34. Bos AF, Martijn A, van Asperen RM, Hadders-Algra M, Okken A, Prechtl HF. Qualitative assessment of general movements in high-risk preterm infants with chronic lung disease requiring dexamethasone therapy. J. Pediatr. 1998;132(2):300-306.
35. Bos A, Martijn A, Okken A, Prechtl H. Quality of general movements in preterm infants with transient periventricular echodensities. Acta Paediatr. 1998;87(3):328-335.
36. Guzzetta A, Mercuri E, Rapisardi G, et al. General movements detect early signs of hemiplegia in term infants with neonatal cerebral infarction. Neuropediatr. 2003;34(2):61-66.
37. Cioni G, Bos A, Einspieler C, et al. Early neurological signs in preterm infants with unilateral intraparenchymal echodensity. Neuropediatr. 2000;31(5):240-251.
38. Einspieler C, Cioni G, Paolicelli P, et al. The early markers for later dyskinetic cerebral palsy are different from those for spastic cerebral palsy. Neuropediatr. 2002;33(2):73-78.
39. Prechtl HF, Ferrari F, Cioni G. Predictive value of general movements in asphyxiated fullterm infants. Early Hum. Dev. 1993;35(2):91-120.
40. Ferrari F, Cioni G, Prechtl HF. Qualitative changes of general movements in preterm infants with brain lesions. Early Hum. Dev. Sep 1990;23(3):193-231.
41. Zuk L, Harel S, Leitner Y, Fattal-Valevski A. Neonatal general movements an early predictor for neurodevelopmental outcome in infants with intrauterine growth retardation. J. Child Neurol. 2004;19(1):14-18.
42. Darsaklis V, Snider LM, Majnemer A, Mazer B. Predictive validity of Prechtl's method on the qualitative assessment of general movements: a systematic review of the evidence. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. Oct 2011;53(10):896-906.
43. Bosanquet M, Copeland L, Ware R, Boyd R. A systematic review of tests to predict cerebral palsy in young children. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2013;55(5):418-426.
44. Prechtl HF, Einspieler C, Cioni G, Bos AF, Ferrari F, Sontheimer D. An early marker for neurological deficits after perinatal brain lesions. The Lancet. 1997;349(9062):1361-1363.
45. Adde L, Rygg M, Lossius K, Oberg GK, Stoen R. General movement assessment: predicting cerebral palsy in clinical practise. Early Hum. Dev. Jan 2007;83(1):13-18.
46. Constantinou JC, Adamson-Macedo EN, Mirmiran M, Fleisher BE. Movement, imaging and neurobehavioral assessment as predictors of cerebral palsy in preterm infants. J. Perinatol. 2007;27(4):225-229.
47. Hamer EG, Bos AF, Hadders-Algra M. Assessment of specific characteristics of abnormal general movements: does it enhance the prediction of cerebral palsy? Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2011;53(8):751-756.
48. Ferrari F, Cioni G, Einspieler C, et al. Cramped-synchronized general movements in preterm infants as an early marker for cerebral palsy. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. May 2002;156(5):460-467.
49. Missiuna C, Polatajko H. Developmental dyspraxia by any other name: are they all just clumsy children? Am. J. Occup. Ther. 1995;49(7):619-627.
50. Hadders‐Algra M. Two distinct forms of minor neurological dysfunction: perspectives emerging from a review of data of the Groningen Perinatal Project. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2002;44(8):561-571.
51. Hadders-Algra M, Mavinkurve-Groothuis AM, Groen SE, Stremmelaar EF, Martijn A, Butcher PR. Quality of general movements and the development of minor neurological dysfunction at toddler and school age. Clin. Rehabil. 2004;18(3):287-299.
52. Bruggink JL, Einspieler C, Butcher PR, Van Braeckel KN, Prechtl HF, Bos AF. The quality of the early motor repertoire in preterm infants predicts minor neurologic dysfunction at school age. J Pediatr. 2008;153(1):32-39. e31.
53. Einspieler C, Marschik PB, Milioti S, Nakajima Y, Bos AF, Prechtl HF. Are abnormal fidgety movements an early marker for complex minor neurological dysfunction at puberty? Early Hum. Dev. 2007;83(8):521-525.
54. Hadders‐Algra M, Nieuwendijk AW, Maitijn A, Eykern LA. Assessment of general movements: towards a better understanding of a sensitive method to evaluate brain function in young infants. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 1997;39(2):88-98.
55. Castellanos FX. Toward a pathophysiology of attention-deficit/hyperactivint disorder. Clin. Pediatr. (Phila.). 1997;36(7):381-393.
56. Kavoussi R, Armstead P, Coccaro E. The neurobiology of impulsive aggression. Psychiatr. Clin. North Am. 1997;20(2):395-403.
57. Hadders‐Algra M, MC Groothuis A. Quality of general movements in infancy is related to neurological dysfunction, ADHD, and aggressive behaviour. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 1999;41(6):381-391.
58. Hadders-Algra M, Bouwstra H, Groen SE. Quality of general movements and psychiatric morbidity at 9 to 12 years. Early Hum. Dev. 2009;85(1):1-6.
59. Butcher PR, Van Braeckel K, Bouma A, Einspieler C, Stremmelaar EF, Bos AF. The quality of preterm infants’ spontaneous movements: an early indicator of intelligence and behaviour at school age. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry. 2009;50(8):920-930.
60. Soria-Pastor S, Gimenez M, Narberhaus A, et al. Patterns of cerebral white matter damage and cognitive impairment in adolescents born very preterm. Int. J. Dev. Neurosci. 2008;26(7):647-654.
61. Woodward LJ, Anderson PJ, Austin NC, Howard K, Inder TE. Neonatal MRI to predict neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006;355(7):685-694.
62. Edgin JO, Inder TE, Anderson PJ, Hood KM, Clark CA, Woodward LJ. Executive functioning in preschool children born very preterm: relationship with early white matter pathology. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 2008;14(01):90-101.
63. Bruggink JL, Van Braeckel KN, Bos AF. The early motor repertoire of children born preterm is associated with intelligence at school age. Pediatr. 2010;125(6):e1356-e1363.
64. Kodric J, Sustersic B, Paro-Panjan D. Assessment of general movements and 2.5 year developmental outcomes: pilot results in a diverse preterm group. Eur. J. Paediatr. Neurol. 2010;14(2):131-137.
65. Mazzone L, Mugno D, Mazzone D. The general movements in children with Down syndrome. Early Hum. Dev. 2004;79(2):119-130.
66. Einspieler C, Kerr AM, Prechtl HF. Is the early development of girls with Rett disorder really normal? Pediatr. Res. 2005;57:696-700.
67. Einspieler C, Kerr AM, Prechtl HF. Abnormal general movements in girls with Rett disorder: the first four months of life. Brain Dev. 2005;27:S8-S13.
68. Einspieler C, Hirota H, Yuge M, Dejima S, Marschik PB. Early behavioural manifestation of Smith-Magenis syndrome (del 17p11. 2) in a 4-month-old boy. Dev. Neurorehabil. 2012;15(4):313-316.
69. Marschik PB, Soloveichick M, Windpassinger C, Einspieler C. General movements in genetic disorders: A first look into Cornelia de Lange syndrome. Dev. Neurorehabil. 2013(0):1-3.
70. Einspieler C, Sigafoos J, Bartl-Pokorny KD, Landa R, Marschik PB, Bölte S. Highlighting the first 5 months of life: General movements in infants later diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder or Rett syndrome. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2014;8(3):286-291.
71. Patterson D. Molecular genetic analysis of Down syndrome. Hum. Genet. 2009;126(1):195-214.
72. Weijerman ME, De Winter JP. Clinical practice. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2010;169(12):1445-1452.
73. Davis AS. Handbook of Pediatric Neuropsychology. Springer Publishing Company; 2010.
74. Morgan AM, Koch V, Lee V, Aldag J. Neonatal neurobehavioral examination. A new instrument for quantitative analysis of neonatal neurological status. Phys. Ther. Sep 1988;68(9):1352-1358.
75. Molteno C, Grosz P, Wallace P, Jones M. Neurological examination of the preterm and full-term infant at risk for developmental disabilities using the Dubowitz Neurological Assessment. Early Hum. Dev. 1995;41(3):167-176.
76. Woodward LJ, Mogridge N, Wells SW, Inder TE. Can neurobehavioral examination predict the presence of cerebral injury in the very low birth weight infant? J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 2004;25(5):326-334.
77. Dubowitz L, Mercuri E, Dubowitz V. An optimality score for the neurologic examination of the term newborn. J Pediatr. 1998;133(3):406-416.
78. Mercuri E, Guzzetta A, Laroche S, et al. Neurologic examination of preterm infants at term age: comparison with term infants. J Pediatr. 2003;142(6):647-655.
79. Piper MC, Darrah J, Boyce N, Maguire TO, Redfern L. Motor assessment of the developing infant. Vol 1: Saunders Philadelphia:; 1994.
80. Jeng S-F, Yau K-IT, Chen L-C, Hsiao S-F. Alberta infant motor scale: reliability and validity when used on preterm infants in Taiwan. Phys. Ther. 2000;80(2):168-178.
81. Folio MK FR. Peabody Developmental Motor Scales: examininer's manual. 2nd ed. . In: Austin NC, ed2000.
82. Prechtl HF. The behavioural states of the newborn infant (a review). Brain Res. 1974;76(2):185-212.
83. Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB. Bias, prevalence and kappa. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1993;46(5):423-429.
84. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1990;43(6):543-549.
85. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174.
86. Portney L, Watkins M. Validity of measurements. Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. 2000:93-101.
87. Harris FC, Lahey BB. Recording system bias in direct observational methodology: A review and critical analysis of factors causing inaccurate coding behavior. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 1982;2(4):539-556.
88. Valentin T, Uhl K, Einspieler C. The effectiveness of training in Prechtl's method on the qualitative assessment of general movements. Early Hum. Dev. 2005;81(7):623-627.
89. Prechtl H, Bos A, Cioni G, Ferrari F, Einspieler C. Spontaneous motor activity as a diagnostic tool. Demonstration video. London, Graz: The GM Trust. 1997.
90. Kazdin AE. Artifact, bias, and complexity of assessment: The ABCs of reliability. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 1977;10(1):141-150.
91. Hadders-Algra M. General movements: a window for early identification of children at high risk for developmental disorders. J Pediatr. 2004;145(2):S12-S18.
92. Majnemer A, Mazer B. Neurologic evaluation of the newborn infant: definition and psychometric properties. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 1998;40(10):708-715.
93. Ricci D, Romeo DM, Haataja L, et al. Neurological examination of preterm infants at term equivalent age. Early Hum. Dev. 2008;84(11):751-761.
94. Bartlett DJ, Fanning JEK. Use of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale to characterize the motor development of infants born preterm at eight months corrected age. Phys. Occup. Ther. Pediatr. 2003;23(4):31-45.
95. Snyder P, Eason JM, Philibert D, Ridgway A, McCaughey T. Concurrent validity and reliability of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale in infants at dual risk for motor delays. Phys. Occup. Ther. Pediatr. 2008;28(3):267-282.
96. Darrah J, Piper M, Watt MJ. Assessment of gross motor skills of at‐risk infants: predictive validity of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 1998;40(7):485-491.
97. Zahr LK, Balian S. Responses of premature infants to routine nursing interventions and noise in the NICU. Nurs. Res. 1995;44(3):179-185.
98. Beccaria E, Martino M, Briatore E, et al. Poor repertoire General Movements predict some aspects of development outcome at 2years in very preterm infants. Early Hum. Dev. 2012;88(6):393-396.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2019-09-11起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw