中美婴儿运动表现测试常模差异分析

doi:10.11852/zgetbjzz2020-1909

中国儿童保健杂志 ›› 2022, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (2): 148-152.DOI: 10.11852/zgetbjzz2020-1909

中美婴儿运动表现测试常模差异分析

屈福祥¹, 胡斌¹, 王成举¹, 黄天琪¹, 吴婕翎², 王玉梅³, 孙克兴⁴, 田园⁵, 曾宇东⁶, 张雪娇⁷, 高越⁸, 孟凡萍⁹, 穆立娟¹⁰, 卢爱洁¹¹, 李海薇¹¹, 武宁¹², 张雨平¹

1.陆军军医大学第二附属医院儿科,重庆 400037;
2.广东省妇幼保健院;
3.郑州大学第三附属医院;
4.上海交通大学医学院附属儿童医学中心;
5.上海市儿童医院;
6.长沙市妇幼保健院;
7.沈阳市妇幼保健院;
8.乌鲁木齐市妇幼保健院;
9.宁夏石嘴山市妇幼保健院;
10.北京市房山区妇幼保健院;
11.昆明市官渡区妇幼保健中心;
12.深圳心智心理测量技术研究所

收稿日期:2020-11-02 修回日期:2021-07-02 发布日期:2022-02-25 出版日期:2022-02-10
通讯作者: 张雨平,E-mail:465616386@qq.com
作者简介:屈福祥(1990-),男,辽宁人,医师,在读硕士研究生,主要研究方向为儿童保健。
基金资助:
重庆市社会事业与民生保障科技创新专项(cstc2017shmsA130013)

Differences of the Test of Infant Motor Performance between Chinese and American norms

^*Department of Pediatrics, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University, Chongqing 400037, China

Received:2020-11-02 Revised:2021-07-02 Online:2022-02-10 Published:2022-02-25
Contact: ZHANG Yu-ping, E-mail: 465616386@qq.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的比较中美婴儿运动表现测试(TIMP)常模,明确本地化研究和修正的重要性,为指导TIMP在国内的推广提供依据。方法经TIMP手册正反译,评估人员培训、信度考核后,分别在华东、华北、华南、华中、西南、西北、东北区域11家医疗机构采样,建立中国TIMP常模,并就样本情况、得分情况及亚组分类与美国常模进行对比。结果中国TIMP常模共13个周龄组,样本总数为1 035例,其中男性占56％,女性占44％,汉族占比95％,少数民族5％,早产儿和足月儿分别占比 31％、69％;美国常模共12个周龄组,样本总数为990例,其中男性占52%,女性48%,白种人占58%,黑种人25%,高危、中危、低危婴儿分别占比35％、30％、35％。中国TIMP常模各周龄组得分均值低于同周龄组的美国常模(P<0.01);中国常模第10、50、90百分位数曲线低于美国常模。中国常模足月儿与早产儿亚组对比,大多数周龄组得分无显著差异;美国常模中高危儿亚组得分显著低于低危组(P<0.001)。结论基于两国人口特征和儿童保健发展现状的不同,中美TIMP常模取样人群存在差异。中国常模各周龄组的得分均值低于美国常模同周龄组婴儿,故我国的临床工作中不可直接使用美国常模作为参考标准。

关键词: 婴儿运动表现测试, 常模, 婴儿

Abstract: Objective To compare Chinese and American norms for the Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP), to understand the difference and clarify the importance of localization studies and revision, so as to provide evidence for guiding the promotion of TIMP in China. Methods After the manual of TIMP having been finished by using forward and backward translation and appraisers having been trained, Chinese norms for TIMP were established by sampling in 11 medical institutions in East China, North China, South China, Central China, Southwest, Northwest and Northeast China. Then the Chinese norms were compared with American norms through the sample, score, and subgroup classification. Results There were 13 week-age groups in Chinese norms for TIMP, and the total number of samples is 1 035, including 56% males and 44% females, 95% Han nationality and 5% ethnic minorities, of which 31% were premature infants and 69% were full-term infants. There were 12 week-age groups in American norms for TIMP with a total of 990 samples, including 52% males and 48% females, 58% whites and 25% blacks, of which high risk, medium risk, and low-risk infants accounted for 35%, 30% and 35%, respectively. The average score of each age group of Chinese norms for TIMP was lower than that of the same age group of American norms(P<0.001), and the 10th, 50th and 90th percentile curves of Chinese norms were lower than those of American norms. There were no significant differences in the scores of most week-age groups between full-term and premature subgroups in Chinese norms, but the score of the high-risk infants subgroup of American norms was significantly lower than those of the low-risk subgroup(P<0.001). Conclusions Based on the differences in the demographic characteristics and the development of child health in two countries, the sample population between Chinese and American norms for TIMP is different. The average scores in all week-age groups of Chinese norms are lower than those of the same week-age group of American norms, so American norms could not be directly used as the reference standard in Chinese clinical work.

Key words: Test of Infant Motor Performance, norm, infant

中图分类号:

R174

屈福祥, 胡斌, 王成举, 黄天琪, 吴婕翎, 王玉梅, 孙克兴, 田园, 曾宇东, 张雪娇, 高越, 孟凡萍, 穆立娟, 卢爱洁, 李海薇, 武宁, 张雨平. 中美婴儿运动表现测试常模差异分析[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2022, 30(2): 148-152.

QU Fu-xiang^*, HU Bin, WANG Cheng-ju, HUANG Tian-qi, WU Jie-ling, WANG Yu-mei, SUN Ke-xing, TIAN Yuan, ZENG Yu-dong, ZHANG Xue-jiao, GAO Yue, MENG Fan-ping, MU Li-juan, LU Ai-jie, LI Hai-wei, WU Ning, ZHANG Yu-ping. Differences of the Test of Infant Motor Performance between Chinese and American norms[J]. Chinese Journal of Child Health Care, 2022, 30(2): 148-152.

参考文献

[1] Volpe JJ. Brain injury in premature infants: a complex amalgam of destructive and developmental disturbances[J]. Lancet Neurol, 2009,8(1):110-124.
[2] Titomanlio L, Kavelaars A, Dalous J, et al. Stem cell therapy for neonatal brain injury: perspectives and challenges[J]. Ann Neurology, 2011,70(5):698-712.
[3] Harrison MS, Goldenberg RL. Global burden of prematurity[J]. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med, 2016,21(2):74-79.
[4] Novak I, Morgan C, Adde L, et al. Early, accurate diagnosis and early intervention in cerebral palsy: Advances in diagnosis and treatment[J]. JAMA Pediatrics, 2017,171(9):897-907.
[5] Hughes AJ, Redsell SA, Glazebrook C. Motor development interventions for preterm infants: A systematic review and Meta-analysis[J]. Pediatrics, 2016,138(4):e20160147.
[6] Campbell PTSK, Osten ET,Kotobe THA,et al. Development of the Test of Infant Motor Performance[J]. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, 1993, 4(3):541-550.
[7] Ustad T, Helbostad JL, Campbell SK, et al. Test-retest reliability of the Test of Infant Motor Performance Screening Items in infants at risk for impaired functional motor performance[J]. Early Human Development,2016,93:43-46.
[8] Peyton C, Schreiber MD, Msall ME. The Test of Infant Motor Performance at 3 months predicts language, cognitive, and motor outcomes in infants born preterm at 2 years of age[J]. Dev Med Child Neurol, 2018,60(12):1239-1243.
[9] Chiquetti E, Valentini NC, Saccani R. Validation and reliability of the Test of Infant Motor Performance for Brazilian infants[J]. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr,2020,40(4):1-16.
[10] Campbell SK, Kolobe TH, Wright BD, et al. Validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance for prediction of 6-, 9- and 12-month scores on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale[J]. Dev Med Child Neurol,2002,44(4):263-272.
[11] Oberg GK, Campbell SK, Girolami GL, et al. Study protocol: an early intervention program to improve motor outcome in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial and a qualitative study of physiotherapy performance and parental experiences[J]. BMC Pediatrics,2012,12:15.
[12] Guimaraes CL, Reinaux CM, Botelho AC, et al. Motor development evaluated by Test of Infant Motor Performance: comparison between preterm and full-term infants[J]. Rev Bras Fisioter,2011,15(5):357-362.
[13] Nuysink J, van Haastert IC, Eijsermans MJ, et al. Prediction of gross motor development and independent walking in infants born very preterm using the Test of Infant Motor Performance and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale[J]. Early Human Development,2013,89(9):693-697.
[14] Campbell SK, Levy P, Zawacki L, et al. Population-based age standards for interpreting results on the test of motor infant performance[J]. Pediatr Phys Ther,2006,18(2):119-125.
[15] 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[J]. Dev Med Child Neurol,2008,50(4):254-266.
[16] Noble Y, Boyd R. Neonatal assessments for the preterm infant up to 4 months corrected age: a systematic review[J]. Dev Med Child Neurol,2012,54(2):129-139.
[17] 王成举,赵树琳,申量,等. 642例矫正胎龄38~58周婴儿运动表现测试结果的分析[J]. 中国当代儿科杂志, 2017,19(12):1252-1256.
[18] 贺莉,陈艳妮.婴儿运动能力测试临床应用[J].中国实用儿科杂志,2017,32(11):813-816.
[19] Tharabenjasin P, Pabalan N, Jarjanazi H, et al. Association of PPARGC1A Gly428Ser (rs8192678) polymorphism with potential for athletic ability and sports performance: A meta-analysis[J]. PLoS One, 2019, 14(1):e0200967.
[20] 缪琼, 柴臻, Jane S, 等. 基于《年龄与发育进程问卷-第3版》调查的中国和美国1~66个月儿童发育状况的比较[J]. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2017,12(2):111-115.

中美婴儿运动表现测试常模差异分析

Differences of the Test of Infant Motor Performance between Chinese and American norms

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	张丽晋, 王丹, 康洪霞, 王奇娟, 魏乾伟, 何辉, 尚晓瑞, 李一辰. 北京市两区婴儿睡眠行为和睡眠问题横断面研究[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2023, 31(6): 689-692.
[2]	尹晓辉, 王葳, 张姣姣, 王洋, 许亚红. 父亲参与婴儿教养量表的汉化[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2023, 31(4): 369-373.
[3]	单瑞洁, 韩静, 屈克丽, 乐蕾, 崔乃雪. 婴儿屏幕暴露的相关因素分析[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2023, 31(4): 374-378.
[4]	冯围围, 张彤, 王惠珊, 杨玉凤, 许志飞, 潘晓平, 王广海, 徐韬, 中国婴幼儿睡眠状况评估量表常模制定工作协作组. 中国幼儿睡眠状况评估量表的验证及全国常模构建[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2023, 31(1): 42-45.
[5]	王硕, 李心悦, 魏瑗, 刘鹭燕, 李在玲, 张华. 母亲孕晚期肠道菌群与婴儿食物过敏的关系[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2022, 30(9): 941-946.
[6]	张小甜, 张悦, 邓梁琼, 赵蓉蓉, 李容, 张风华, 徐韬. 母亲抑郁情绪对3月龄婴儿发育影响的关联性分析[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2022, 30(9): 947-951.
[7]	何彦璐, 杨志勇, 刘丰, 董文红, 匡晓妮, 张雪娇, 王念蓉, 骆艳, 杨琳, 王晓娟, 吴建新, 张霆, 朱宗涵, 王健, 关宏岩, 童梅玲. 3～6岁儿童基本运动能力评估量表中国常模研究[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2022, 30(6): 594-598.
[8]	王丽宁, 王冬雪, 李英丽, 齐娜, 李杨, 张慧. 父亲参与婴儿照顾体验质性研究的Meta整合分析[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2022, 30(6): 655-659.
[9]	胡丹, 汪晓霞, 崔一帆, 刘璞, 梁倩, 肖绪武. 辅助生殖技术受孕单胎早产儿出生结局和认知发育的纵向研究[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2022, 30(6): 669-672.
[10]	申家建, 单玲, 贾飞勇, 李洪华. 3～6月龄婴儿Hammersmith婴儿神经检查最优评分影响因素分析[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2022, 30(6): 677-679.
[11]	李欣, 王战胜, 陈燕梅, 张寅, 杜锟. Alberta婴儿运动量表在评估早期综合性干预对早产儿预后影响的应用[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2022, 30(5): 562-565.
[12]	李玉萍, 陈颖, 陈舒旗, 肖霞, 齐志业, 李燕. 农村妇女孕期膳食模式对婴儿认知发育的影响[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2022, 30(3): 244-248.
[13]	胡丹, 汪晓霞, 崔一帆, 刘璞, 梁倩, 肖绪武. 辅助生殖技术试管足月儿神经心理行为发育的纵向研究[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2022, 30(2): 140-143.
[14]	高淑芝, 李阳, 贾玉凤, 董琰, 张双, 高静云. 基于AIMS评估指导早产儿家庭干预对运动技能发展的研究[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2022, 30(2): 225-228.
[15]	张怡敏, 靳和玥, 陶芳标, 朱昱敏. 中晚期早产儿不良神经发育结局的研究进展[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2022, 30(11): 1198-1202.