Steven Stefanie, Müller Carlotta, Spiess Karoline, Bossier Christiane, Schönau Eckhard, Duran Ibrahim
Center of Prevention and Rehabilitation, Medical Faculty and University Hospital, University of Cologne, 50931 Cologne, Germany.
Department of Pediatrics, Medical Faculty and University Hospital, University of Cologne, 50931 Cologne, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2025 Jun 25;14(13):4512. doi: 10.3390/jcm14134512.
The reduced Gross Motor Function Measure-66 (rGMFM-66) has already demonstrated its validity compared to the standard GMFM-66 using the Gross Motor Ability Estimator-2 (GMAE-2). This study aimed to evaluate its validity using the updated Gross Motor Ability Estimator-3 (GMAE-3) and to compare agreement between GMFM-66v2 and GMFM-66v3. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 250 children with cerebral palsy (CP) enrolled in a rehabilitation program between 2015 and 2024. All GMFCS levels (I-V) were represented. The sample included 107 females and 143 males, with a mean age of 6.9 years (SD 3.4). Agreement between scoring methods was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analyses. The rGMFM-66 showed excellent agreement with GMFM-66v3 (ICC = 0.994; 95% CI 0.992-0.996). Similar agreement was found between GMFM-66v2 andGMFM-66v3 (ICC = 0.994; 95% CI 0.991-0.996). Bland-Altman plots confirmed close agreement across all comparisons. The rGMFM-66 reduces administration time from 45 to 26 min, offering a 42% time saving in clinical use. The rGMFM-66 demonstrates very high agreement with GMFM-66v3 and appears to be a valid alternative. Its strong concordance supports its applicability in both clinical and research settings. Although agreement was high, minor differences between scoring methods indicate that results should be interpreted in light of the scoring algorithm applied.
与使用粗大运动能力评估器-2（GMAE-2）的标准GMFM-66相比，简化版粗大运动功能测量量表-66（rGMFM-66）已证明其有效性。本研究旨在使用更新后的粗大运动能力评估器-3（GMAE-3）评估其有效性，并比较GMFM-66v2和GMFM-66v3之间的一致性。对2015年至2024年期间参加康复项目的250例脑瘫（CP）患儿进行了回顾性分析。涵盖了所有GMFCS分级（I-V级）。样本包括107名女性和143名男性，平均年龄为6.9岁（标准差3.4）。使用组内相关系数（ICC）和Bland-Altman分析评估评分方法之间的一致性。rGMFM-66与GMFM-66v3显示出极佳的一致性（ICC = 0.994；95%CI 0.992-0.996）。GMFM-66v2和GMFM-66v3之间也发现了类似的一致性（ICC = 0.994；95%CI 0.991-0.996）。Bland-Altman图证实了所有比较中的密切一致性。rGMFM-66将施测时间从45分钟减少到26分钟，在临床使用中节省了42%的时间。rGMFM-66与GMFM-66v3显示出非常高的一致性，似乎是一种有效的替代方法。其高度一致性支持其在临床和研究环境中的适用性。尽管一致性很高，但评分方法之间的细微差异表明，应根据所应用的评分算法来解释结果。
