This study was designed to investigate the construct–concurrent validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale–2 (PDMS-2) in at-risk infants between 0–24 age in Turkey. In this study, 120 infants (70 males, 50 females) participated in the study (mean corrected age 20.18 ± 22.535 weeks). The PDMS-2 scale consists of two subdimensions, the Fine Motor Quotient (FMQ) and the Gross Motor Quotient (GMQ). Whereas the construct validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, concurrent validity was investigated using the correlation between PDMS-2 and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale and the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination with Spearman’s correlation analysis. The PDMS-2 was applied twice for test–retest reliability. Cronbach’s alpha (α) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used for reliability. ICC value was with 95% CI. The overall reliability coefficient of the test was found to be Croncbach’s α = 0.865. TICC values were found (ICC FMQ: 0.998, ICC GMQ: 0.998). Construct validity (/SD = 4.396; root mean square error of approximation = 0.021; goodness-of-fit index = 0.951) and concurrent validity (r = 0.502–0.771; p < .05) were confirmed as acceptable. The PDMS-2 demonstrated good psychometric properties and can be used as a reliable and valid measure to assess neurodevelopmental aspects of Turkish at-risk infants.
AisenM. L.KerkovichD.MastJ.MulroyS.WrenT. A.KayR. M.RethlefsenS. A. (2011). Cerebral palsy: Clinical care and neurological rehabilitation. The Lancet Neurology, 10(9), 844–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70176-4
2.
Akbaş NumanoğluA.ÇankayaÖ.SeyhanK.Kerem GünelM. (2020). Inter-rater reliability of infant motor profile in 3–24-month-old high-risk infants: Turkey sample. Environment, 6(2), 155–160. https://doi.org/10.5152/ArcHealthSciRes.2020.575433
AndersonP. J.De LucaC. R.HutchinsonE.RobertsG.DoyleL. W.Victorian Infant Collaborative Group. (2010). Underestimation of developmental delay by the new Bayley-III Scale. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 164(4), 352–356. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.20
5.
AndresenE. M. (2000). Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(12 Suppl 2), S15–S20. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2000.20619
6.
AtalayD.SalihoğluÖ.CanE.BeşkardeşA.HatipoğluS. (2013). Short-term outcomes of very low birth weight infants born at a tertiary care hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. Iranian Journal of Pediatrics, 23(2), 205–211.
BeatonD. E.BombardierC.GuilleminF.FerrazM. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
9.
BergM.JahnsenR.FrøslieK. F.HussainA. (2004). Reliability of the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory (PEDI). Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 24(3), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1300/j006v24n03_05
10.
Blauw-HospersC. H.Hadders-AlgraM. (2005). A systematic review of the effects of early intervention on motor development. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 47(6), 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0012162205000824
11.
BosanquetM.CopelandL.WareR.BoydR. (2013). A systematic review of tests to predict cerebral palsy in young children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 55(5), 418–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12140
CelikH. I.OzturkD.SariM.BulutN.BekN. (2024). Psychometric and edumetric properties of the Turkish version of the assessment of physiotherapy practice. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), Article 1162. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06180-w
14.
CroceR. V.HorvatM.McCarthyE. (2001). Reliability and concurrent validity of the movement assessment battery for children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 93(1), 275–280. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2001.93.1.275
15.
DarrahJ.PiperM.WattM. (1998). Assessment of gross motor skills of at-risk infants: Predictive validity of the Alberta infant motor scale. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 40(7), 485–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1998.tb15399.x
16.
DoyleL. W.AndersonP. J.BattinM.BowenJ. R.BrownN.CallananC.CampbellC.ChandlerS.CheongJ.DarlowB.DavisP. G.DePaoliT.FrenchN.McPheeA.MorrisS.O’CallaghanM.RiegerI.RobertsG.SpittleA. J.DarlowB. (2014). Long term follow up of high risk children: Who, why and how?BMC Pediatrics, 14(1), Article 279. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-14-279
17.
DugerT.BuminG.UyanikM.AkiE.KayihanH. (1999). The assessment of Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency in children. Pediatric Rehabilitation, 3(3), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/136384999289531
18.
EvaggelinouC.TsigilisN.PapaA. (2002). Construct validity of the test of gross motor development: A cross-validation approach. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19(4), 483–495. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.19.4.483
19.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.BuchnerA. (2007). G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
20.
FolioM. R.FewelR. (1983). Peabdy developmental motor scales and activity cards. A manual. DLM Teaching Resources.
21.
FolioM. R.FewellR. R. (2000). Peabody development motor scales: PDMS-2 (Pro-Ed). Austin: TX.
22.
Fraga-SousaG. A.RodriguesM. C. R.PereiraM. G.ArrudaT. S.SouzaR. C. T. (2016). Motor performance of HIV-positive children. Fisioterapia em Movimento, 29(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-5150.029.001.ao06
23.
GeldhofG. J.PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032138
24.
HaatajaL.CowanF.MercuriE.BassiL.GuzzettaA.DubowitzL. (2003). Application of a scorable neurologic examination in healthy term infants aged 3 to 8 months. The Journal of Pediatrics, 143(4), Article 546. https://doi.org/10.1067/S0022-3476(03)00393-7
25.
HaatajaL.MercuriE.RegevR.CowanF.RutherfordM.DubowitzV.DubowitzL. (1999). Optimality score for the neurologic examination of the infant at 12 and 18 months of age. The Journal of Pediatrics, 135(2 Pt 1), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3476(99)70016-8
JensenL.PiekJ.KaneR.DownsJ. (2015). Infants who are more active when awake have better gross motor development. Physiotherapy, 101(1), Article e679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2015.03.3522
28.
KooT. K.LiM. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of chiropractic medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
NovakI.MorganC.AddeL.BlackmanJ.BoydR. N.Brunstrom-HernandezJ.CioniG.DamianoD.DarrahJ.EliassonA. C.de VriesL. S.EinspielerC.FaheyM.FehlingsD.FerrieroD. M.FettersL.FioriS.ForssbergH.GordonA. M.EliassonA. (2017). Early, accurate diagnosis and early intervention in cerebral palsy: Advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA Pediatrics, 171(9), 897–907. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1689
31.
PiperM. C.PinnellL. E.DarrahJ.MaguireT.ByrneP. J. (1992). Construction and validation of the Alberta infant motor scale (AIMS). Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 83(Suppl 2), S46–S50. 1468050.
32.
PolitD. F.BeckC. T.OwenS. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
33.
RajuT. N.BuistA. S.BlaisdellC. J.Moxey-MimsM.SaigalS. (2017). Adults born preterm: A review of general health and system-specific outcomes. Acta Paediatrica, 106(9), 1409–1437. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.13880
34.
RevelleW.ZinbargR. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z
35.
SaraivaL.RodriguesL. P.BarreirosJ. (2011). Adaptation and validation of the Portuguese Peabody developmental motor scales-2 version: A study with preschoolers children. Revista da Educação Física/UEM, 22(4), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.4025/reveducfis.v22i4.12149
36.
SchererK. R. (1988). Criteria for emotion-antecedent appraisal: A review. In Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation (pp. 89–126). NATO ASI Series.
37.
TastepeT.AkyolA. K. (2019). 36-47 aylik cocuklarda peabody motor gelisim olcegi-2’nin uyarlama calismasi ve motor gelisimin incelenmesi. Milli Egitim Dergisi, 48(223), 61–82. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/789658
38.
TavasoliA.AzimiP.MontazariA. (2014). Reliability and validity of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-second edition for assessing motor development of low birth weight preterm infants. Pediatric Neurology, 51(4), 522–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2014.06.010
39.
TopuzS.ÜlgerÖ.YakutY.Gül ŞenerF. (2011). Reliability and construct validity of the Turkish version of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthetic Experience Scales (TAPES) in lower limb amputees. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 35(2), 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364611407678
40.
Van HartingsveldtM. J.CupE. H.OostendorpR. A. (2005). Reliability and validity of the fine motor scale of the Peabody developmental motor scales–2. Occupational Therapy International, 12(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.11
41.
WangM.MeiH.LiuC.ZhangY.LiH.YanF. (2017). Application of the Peabody developmental motor scale in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders in premature infants (pp. 760–763). Chinese Pediatric Emergency Medicine.
42.
ZanellaL. W.ValentiniN. C.CopettiF.NobreG. C. (2021). Peabody developmental motor scales - second edition (PDMS-2): Reliability, content and construct validity evidence for Brazilian children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 111(1), Article 103871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2021.103871
