Accuracy of motor assessment in the diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
Accuracy
Assessment
Child and youth development
Diagnosis
Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD)
Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS)
Fine motor
Gross motor
Motor skills
Prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE)
Journal
BMC pediatrics
ISSN: 1471-2431
Titre abrégé: BMC Pediatr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967804
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 05 2019
28 05 2019
Historique:
received:
12
12
2018
accepted:
17
05
2019
entrez:
30
5
2019
pubmed:
30
5
2019
medline:
13
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate the accuracy of motor assessment tools listed in Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: a guideline for diagnosis across the lifespan (Canadian Guideline) for the purpose of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) diagnosis. Specifically, we aimed to determine: 1) diagnostic accuracy of motor assessment tools and subtests; 2) accuracy of multiple subtests versus total scores; and 3) accuracy of alternate cut-offs. Cross-sectional diagnostic study of 63 children aged 6-17 years. Diagnostic accuracy and alternate cut-offs were calculated for the Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd edition (MABC-2), Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, 2nd edition Short Form (BOT-2SF) and Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration, 6th edition (BeeryVMI-6). The MABC-2 total motor score was more sensitive (0.30; 95% CI 0.17-0.46; p < 0.01) to motor impairment in the presence of FASD than the BOT-2SF (0.02; 95% CI 0.00-0.12) at the 2nd percentile (-2SD). The MABC-2 total motor score was more accurate than any combination of subtest scores. The Motor Coordination subtest of the BeeryVMI-6 (BeeryMC) at the 5th percentile (- 1.5SD) (sensitivity 0.68, specificity 0.90) was the most accurate subtest. The BOT-2SF was an inaccurate assessment tool for FASD diagnosis. The MABC-2 total motor score was the most accurate using current guidelines, though its sensitivity was still low. Further investigation into inclusion of single subtests and/or using a less conservative cut-off in the Canadian Guideline is warranted.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the accuracy of motor assessment tools listed in Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: a guideline for diagnosis across the lifespan (Canadian Guideline) for the purpose of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) diagnosis. Specifically, we aimed to determine: 1) diagnostic accuracy of motor assessment tools and subtests; 2) accuracy of multiple subtests versus total scores; and 3) accuracy of alternate cut-offs.
METHODS
Cross-sectional diagnostic study of 63 children aged 6-17 years. Diagnostic accuracy and alternate cut-offs were calculated for the Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd edition (MABC-2), Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, 2nd edition Short Form (BOT-2SF) and Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration, 6th edition (BeeryVMI-6).
RESULTS
The MABC-2 total motor score was more sensitive (0.30; 95% CI 0.17-0.46; p < 0.01) to motor impairment in the presence of FASD than the BOT-2SF (0.02; 95% CI 0.00-0.12) at the 2nd percentile (-2SD). The MABC-2 total motor score was more accurate than any combination of subtest scores. The Motor Coordination subtest of the BeeryVMI-6 (BeeryMC) at the 5th percentile (- 1.5SD) (sensitivity 0.68, specificity 0.90) was the most accurate subtest.
CONCLUSIONS
The BOT-2SF was an inaccurate assessment tool for FASD diagnosis. The MABC-2 total motor score was the most accurate using current guidelines, though its sensitivity was still low. Further investigation into inclusion of single subtests and/or using a less conservative cut-off in the Canadian Guideline is warranted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31138161
doi: 10.1186/s12887-019-1542-3
pii: 10.1186/s12887-019-1542-3
pmc: PMC6537401
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
171Références
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2011 May;17(3):463-73
pubmed: 21349236
Pediatrics. 2016 Aug;138(2):
pubmed: 27464676
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2006 Dec;30(12):2037-45
pubmed: 17117969
Pediatrics. 2014 Jul;134(1):e192-209
pubmed: 24913787
Lancet. 1973 Nov 3;302(7836):999-1001
pubmed: 4127281
JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Oct 1;171(10):948-956
pubmed: 28828483
Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2009;15(3):218-24
pubmed: 19731385
J Paediatr Child Health. 2017 Oct;53(10):1021-1023
pubmed: 28975754
Drug Alcohol Rev. 2016 Nov;35(6):719-727
pubmed: 26879822
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011 Mar;90(3):210-26
pubmed: 21306306
Hum Mov Sci. 2009 Aug;28(4):529-42
pubmed: 19345435
Neuropsychology. 1998 Jan;12(1):146-53
pubmed: 9460742
Alcohol Alcohol. 2000 Jul-Aug;35(4):400-10
pubmed: 10906009
J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2014 Nov-Dec;35(9):598-609
pubmed: 25325756
J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2013;20(3):e212-28
pubmed: 24163126
CMAJ. 2016 Feb 16;188(3):191-197
pubmed: 26668194
Phys Ther. 2008 Feb;88(2):286-94
pubmed: 18073266
BMC Pediatr. 2017 Nov 21;17(1):193
pubmed: 29157212
J Paediatr Child Health. 2016 Aug;52(8):814-24
pubmed: 27439995
Pediatr Phys Ther. 2016 Winter;28(4):460-8
pubmed: 27661243
Res Dev Disabil. 2016 Aug;55:346-57
pubmed: 27228005
Aust Occup Ther J. 2009 Dec;56(6):393-402
pubmed: 20854550
BMC Pediatr. 2013 Sep 06;13:135
pubmed: 24010634
Res Dev Disabil. 2009 Sep-Oct;30(5):847-55
pubmed: 19181480