Zhao Gai, Bian Yang, Li Ming
Department of Pediatrics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 10034, China.
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2013 Dec 18;45(6):928-32.
To analyze the impact of passing items above the roof level in the gross motor subtest of Peabody development motor scales (PDMS-2) on its assessment results.
In the subtests of PDMS-2, 124 children from 1.2 to 71 months were administered. Except for the original scoring method, a new scoring method which includes passing items above the ceiling were developed. The standard scores and quotients of the two scoring methods were compared using the independent-samples t test.
Only one child could pass the items above the ceiling in the stationary subtest, 19 children in the locomotion subtest, and 17 children in the visual-motor integration subtest. When the scores of these passing items were included in the raw scores, the total raw scores got the added points of 1-12, the standard scores added 0-1 points and the motor quotients added 0-3 points. The diagnostic classification was changed only in two children. There was no significant difference between those two methods about motor quotients or standard scores in the specific subtest (P>0.05).
The passing items above a ceiling of PDMS-2 isn't a rare situation. It usually takes place in the locomotion subtest and visual-motor integration subtest. Including these passing items into the scoring system will not make significant difference in the standard scores of the subtests or the developmental motor quotients (DMQ), which supports the original setting of a ceiling established by upassing 3 items in a row. However, putting the passing items above the ceiling into the raw score will improve tracking of children's developmental trajectory and intervention effects.
分析在皮博迪发展运动量表(PDMS-2)粗大运动子测试中通过高于上限水平项目对其评估结果的影响。
在PDMS-2的子测试中,对124名年龄在1.2至71个月的儿童进行测试。除了原始评分方法外,还制定了一种新的评分方法,该方法包括对通过高于上限的项目进行计分。使用独立样本t检验比较两种评分方法的标准分数和商数。
在静止子测试中只有1名儿童能够通过高于上限的项目,在移动子测试中有19名儿童,在视动整合子测试中有17名儿童。当将这些通过项目的分数纳入原始分数时,总原始分数增加了1至12分,标准分数增加了0至1分,运动商数增加了0至3分。只有两名儿童的诊断分类发生了变化。在特定子测试中,两种方法在运动商数或标准分数方面没有显著差异(P>0.05)。
PDMS-2高于上限的通过项目并非罕见情况。它通常发生在移动子测试和视动整合子测试中。将这些通过项目纳入评分系统在子测试的标准分数或发展运动商数(DMQ)方面不会产生显著差异,这支持了连续通过3个项目即设定上限的原始设置。然而,将高于上限的通过项目纳入原始分数将改善对儿童发育轨迹和干预效果的跟踪。