Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-Second Edition

Cerebral Palsy (CP): (Wang et al, 2006; n=32; mean age younger mild CP= 34.0 (5.9) months; mean age younger severe CP = 39.8 (2.8) months; mean age older milder CP = 54.5 (7.0) months; mean age older severe CP = 54.6 (6.4) months)

• SEM for Developmental Quotients: GM=1.1, FM=2.5, Total Motor (TM)=1.6
• SEM for Percentile Scores: GM=0.5, FM=4.4, TM=1.2
• SEM for Raw Scores: GM=3.0, FM=3.0, TM=4.7
• SEM for Percentage Scores: GM=1.3, FM=1.3, TM=1.1

Cerebral Palsy: (Wang et al, 2006)

• Excellent Test-Retest for Developmental Quotients (DQs): (GM ICC=0.988; FM ICC=0.979; Total Motor ICC=0.984)
• Excellent Test-Retest for Percentile Scores: (GM ICC=0.954; FM ICC=0.919; TM ICC=0.984)
• Excellent Test-Retest for Raw Scores: (GM ICC=0.996; FM ICC=0.993; TM ICC=0.996)

Cerebral Palsy: (Wang et al, 2006)

• GRI-R values for 3 composites of PDMS-2 were (GRI-R GM=1.7 small change, GRI-R FM=2.3 small change, GRI-R TM=2.3 small change)
• ES Value for each composite was 0.2 (minimum standard proposed indicates a small change)
• SRM values of PDMS-2 percentage scores were: (SRM GM=0.9 trivial  to small change, SRM FM=1.0 small change, SRM TM=1.3 small change)

Intellectual Disabilities (ID): (Wuang et al, 2012; n=141; mean age =42.9 (14.9) months; n=101 classified as having mild intellectual disability)

• SEM for ID: 1.80

PDMS-2 Examiner’s Manual: (Folio & Fewell, 2000; n=2,003; Male n=1,008; Female n=995; European American n=1,367; African American n=273; Hispanic American n=262; Speech Language Disorder n=100; Physical Disorder n=41)  

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang et al, 2012) “MDC calculated from 1.96 x √2 x SEM”

• MDC for entire group (n=141): 7.76 (8.2)

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang et al, 2012)

• MCID for entire group (n=141): 8.39

Dutch Children With and Without Fine Motor: (Van Hartingsveldt et al, 2005; n=18; mean age = 61.9 (9.1) months

• Cut-Off point is 16^th percentile, child is considered to have fine motor problems

At-Risk and Preterm Infants: (Darrah et al, 1998; n=164; male=87 & female=77; n=156 born at ≤36 weeks gestation (mean=28.47 wk., SD=2.58 wk. with a mean birthweight=1108g, SD=301.63 g); n=8 term infants, mean birthweight=3115 g, SD=748.29g)

• In At-Risk and Preterm Infants, the only acceptable Cut-Off point is the 16^th percentile for GM skills in infants at the 4 month age level

Dutch Children With and Without Fine Motor Problems: (Van Hartingsveldt et al, 2005)

• 39% had fine motor problems

Dutch Children Without Fine Motor Problems: (Van Hartingsveldt et al, 2005; n=18; mean age = 62.7 (9.3) months)

• 0% had fine motor problems

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang et al, 2012)

• Standard Score Mean = 100 (15)

PDMS-2 Examiner’s Manual: (Folio & Fewell, 2000; Male n=1,008; Female n=995; European American n=1,367; African American n=273; Hispanic American n=262; Speech Language Disorder n=100; Physical Disorder n=41)

• Mean of Subtest scores of 10(3)
• Quotient Standard Scores are based on a distribution having a mean of 100(15)

PDMS-2 Scores for Assessment of Motor Development: (Folio & Fewell, 2000; n=20 for children 2-11 months; n=30 for children 12 through 17 months; Male n=1,008; Female n=995; European American n=1,367; African American n=273; Hispanic American n=262; Speech Language Disorder n=100; Physical Disorder n=41)

• Excellent Test-Retest for subtests (Reflexes=0.82, Stationary=0.96, Locomotion=0.93, Grasping=0.82, Visual-Motor Integration=0.95) for ages 2-11 months
• Excellent Test-Retest for subtests (Stationary=0.85, Locomotion=0.96, Object Manipulation=0.89, Grasping=0.91, Visual-Motor Integration=0.90) for 12-17 months
• Excellent Test-Retest for quotients (except for fine motor quotient) (Gross Motor Quotient=0.84, Fine Motor Quotient=0.73, Total Motor Quotient=0.89) for ages 2-11 months
•  Adequate Test-Retest (0.73) for fine motor quotient for ages 2-11 months
• Excellent Test-Retest for quotients (Gross Motor Quotient=0.93, Fine Motor Quotient=0.94, Total Motor Quotient=0.96) for 12-17 months

PDMS-2 Translated into Portuguese: (Saraiva et al, 2011)

• Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=0.85-0.95)

Dutch Children With and Without Fine Motor Problems: (Van Hartingsveldt et al, 2005; n=18; mean age = 61.9 (9.1) months)

• Excellent test-retest reliability (FMQ r=0.98, Standard Score (SS) Grasping r=0.96, SS Visual Motor r=0.84)

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang et al, 2012)

• Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.97)

Infants at Dual Risk (biological & environmental) for Motor Delays: (Snyder et al, 2008; n=35 (n=24 infants under 9 months & n=11 infants older than 9 months); mean chronological age=8 months, 9 days (range=2 months, 19 days to 16 months, 23 days)

• Excellent Interrater reliability (expert examiners and student examiners of AIMs and PDMS-2) for subtests (ICC=0.98 for Reflex; ICC=0.99 for Stationary; and, ICC=1.00 for Locomotion)

PDMS-2 Scores for Assessment of Raters: (Folio & Fewell, 2000; n=60 completed protocols; n=30 completed protocols for 3- and 11-month olds; n=30 completed protocols for 15- through 36-month olds)

• Excellent Interrater reliability for subtests (Reflexes=0.98, Stationary=0.97, Locomotion=0.99, Object Manipulation=0.98, Grasping=0.98, Visual-Motor Integration=0.98)
• Excellent Interrater reliability for quotient (Gross Motor Quotient=0.97, Fine Motor Quotient=0.98, Total Motor Quotient=0.96)

Dutch Children With and Without Fine Motor Problems: (Van Hartingsveldt et al, 2005; n=18; mean age = 61.9 (9.1) months)

• Excellent interrater reliability (FMQ r=0.98, SS Grasping r=0.94, SS Visual-Motor r=0.99)

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang et al, 2012)

• Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient=0.89)

PDMS-2 Scores for Assessment of Motor Development: (Folio & Fewell, 2000)

• Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach α=0.89-0.97*)
• 100% of Cronbach’s coefficient alphas for the PDMS-2 reach 0.70; 90% attain 0.80; and, 80% attain 0.90
• Cronbach’s coefficient alphas for the PDMS-2 quotients, all 18 exceed 0.90
• The Cronbach’s coefficient alphas were averaged using z-transformation method for averaging correlation coefficients. The averaged alphas indicate all but one subtest (i.e., stationary = 0.89) have coefficient alphas of 0.90 or above and they range from 0.89-0.96 as shown in the table below
• Averaged Cronbach’s coefficient alphas for quotients were 0.96 and 0.97*

*Scores > 0.90 may indicate redundancy

PDMS-2 Translated into Portuguese: (Saraiva et al, 2011)

• Adequate internal consistency (Cronbach α=0.76-0.95*)

*Scores > 0.90 may indicate redundancy

Infants at Dual Risk (biological and environmental) for Motor Delays: (Snyder et al, 2008)

• Excellent correlation of AIMS scores and PDMS-2 subscale scores for total sample: (r= >0.80, ρ = ≤0.05)
• Excellent correlation of AIMS scores and PDMS-2 locomotion subscale scores for total sample: (r=0.97)
• Excellent concurrent validity of Infants under 9 months: (r=0.82–0.93)
• Excellent concurrent validity of Infants over 9 months: (r=0.78-0.88)

At-Risk and Preterm Infants: (Darrah et al, 1998)

• At the 18 month evaluation, 128 infants were classified as normal in their development, 14 infants were classified as suspicious in motor development and 22 were classified as abnormal in motor development. Data from 4 months and 8 months were analyzed to determine predictive value of abnormal development at 18  months
• Selected cut-off points correspond to -1 SD=(16^th), -1.5 SD=(6^th), and -2.0 SD=(2^nd) as these are suggested in the manual to delineate between normal, suspicious and abnormal scores
• Poor sensitivity at 4 months when suspicious infants are included with abnormal infants
• Poor specificity at 8 months when suspicious infants are included with abnormal infants
• When suspicious infants are included with normal infants, the only Adequate sensitivity and specificity is for the 16^th percentile cut-off point at 4 months  
• PDMS-2 generally demonstrates Poor predictive values in infants who are at-risk or preterm. A possible explanation is the items included at the 4 and 5 month level are achievable by infants with impaired mobility resulting in poor specificity. In contrast, the motor skills at the 8 and 9 month level are complex skills that many typically developing infants are not regularly practicing and therefore results in poor specificity

12 month old Infants: (Connolly, et al, 2006; n=15; mean age=12 months 2 days (9.11 days)

• Poor correlation between SS of FMQ of PDMS-2 and Psychomotor Development Index (PDI) of BSID-II: (r=0.22, ρ =nonsignificant)
• Poor correlation between SS of GMQ of PDMS-2 and PDI of BSID-II: (r=0.30, ρ =nonsignificant)
• Poor correlation between SS of TMQ of PDMS-2 and PDI of BSID-II: (r=0.32, ρ =nonsignificant)
• Poor correlation between age equivalent score on PDMS-2 fine motor subtest and BSID-II Motor Scale: (r=0.13, ρ =nonsignificant)
• Poor correlation between age equivalent score on PDMS-2 stationary and gross motor subtest and BSID-II Motor Scale: (r=0.28, ρ =nonsignicant)
• Poor correlation between fine motor subtest visual motor integration and BSID-II: (r=0.29, ρ =nonsignificant)
• Poor but negative correlation found between age equivalent scores for PDMS-2 gross motor subtest for object manipulation and BSID-II Motor Scale: (r= -0.41, ρ =nonsignificant)
• Excellent and significant correlation between age equivalent scores of PDMS-2 gross motor subtest for locomotion and BSID-II Motor Scale: (r=0.71, ρ <0.05)
• Excellent agreement of scores for classification in average range of motor abilities between PDMS-2 and BSID-II: (93% agreement)

Children with Developmental Delays: (Provost et al, 2004; n=110; mean age=25.3 (9.7) months; range 3-41 months)

• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 age equivalent scores for Reflexes with BSID-II: n=13; (r=0.89, ρ <0.001)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 age equivalent scores for Stationary with BSID-II: (r=0.93, ρ <0.001)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 age equivalent scores for Locomotion with BSID-II: (r=0.97, ρ <0.001)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 age equivalent scores for Object Manipulation with BSID-II: n=95; (r=0.90, ρ <0.001)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 age equivalent scores for Grasping with BSID-II: (r=0.85, ρ <0.001)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 age equivalent scores for Visual Motor Integration with BSID-II: (r=0.94, ρ <0.001)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 GMQ: with BSID-II Motor Scale: (r=0.75, ρ <0.001)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 FMQ with BSID-II Motor Scale: (r=0.67, ρ <0.001)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 TMQ with BSID-II Motor Scale: (r=0.76, ρ <0.001)
• BSID-II mean standard scores (SS) for n=110: (SS=65.6) and PDMS-2 motor quotient (SS=82.8 – 87.0), despite mean off 100 with SD=15 for each test
• More than 75% of the 70 children whose scores on BSID II supported eligibility for services (scores at least 2 SD below mean) would NOT have qualified for service on PDMS-2 score alone
• Approximately 50% of children showing appropriate total motor performance on PDMS-2 were delayed on BSID-II Motor Scale

(Maring & Elbaum, 2007; n=30; mean age=32.9 (9.2) months; range 12-44 months)

• Excellent correlation of age equivalent scores with EIDP age equivalent scores using the Pearson product moment correlation coefficients (r=0.91, ρ<0.01)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 gross motor with EIDP GM (r=0.91, ρ<0.01)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 stationary subtest with EIDP GM (r=0.84, ρ<0.01)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 locomotion subtest with EIDP GM (r=0.95, ρ<0.01)
• Excellent correlation of PDMS-2 object manipulation and EIDP GM (r=0.84, ρ<0.01)
• Children’s age equivalent scores were significantly higher on the EIDP than on the PDMS-2 (t=3.96, ρ=0.001, d=0.72) and an average difference of 3.8 months between the two scores

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang et al, 2012)

• Excellent concurrent validity with BOT-2 (Time Period 1=0.88, Time Period 2=0.84, Time Period 3=0.86)
• Excellent concurrent validity with MABC-2 (Time Period 1=0.84, Time Period 2=0.80, Time Period 3=0.82)
• Excellent concurrent validity of BOT-2, MABC-2 & PDMS-2 for assessing motor function in children with ID (Spearman ρ correlation coefficient ≥ 0.80)
• Adequate predictive validity of PDMS-2, MABC-2, BOT-2 with moderate relationship of Physical Tasks Performance Scale (PTPS) scores

Dutch Children With and Without Fine Motor Problems: (Van Hartingsveldt et al, 2005)

• Excellent convergent validity with the M-ABC (r=0.69)

Children with Developmental Disabilities: (Van Waelvelde et al, 2007; n=31; mean age=59(6) months)

• Excellent correlation between the total score of the M-ABC and PDMS-2 using Spearman correlation coefficient was: (r=0.76)
• Excellent correlation between GM components of M-ABC and PDMS-2 was: (r=0.71)
• Adequate correlation between FM components of M-ABC and PDMS-2 was: (r=0.48)
• Poor agreement between M-ABC and PDMS-2 with identification of children with mild motor impairments: (K=0.29)

PDMS-2 Administration Manual: (Folio & Fewell, 2000; Male n=1,008; Female n=995; European American n=1,367; African American n=273; Hispanic American n=262; Speech Language Disorder n=100; Physical Disorder n=41)

• Excellent confirmatory factor analysis results support the construct validity of the PDMS-2 (x²/df=3.2; TLI=0.98; RMSEA=0.68) for children birth through 11 months and (x²/df=3.98; TLI=0.96; RMSEA=0.80) for children 12 through 72 months
• Excellent construct correlation between the Gross Motor and Fine Motor abilities (0.79) for children birth through 11 months old and (0.72) for children 12 through 72 months
• Excellent factor loading for all subtests (Stationary=0.71, Locomotion=0.65, Visual-Motor Integration=0.62, Grasping=0.58) except for Adequate loading for Reflexes=0.40 for children birth through 11 months old
• Excellent factor loading for all subtests (Stationary=0.72, Locomotion=0.89, Object Manipulation=0.63, Visual-Motor Integration=0.87) except for Adequate loading for Grasping=0.54 for children 12 through 72 months
• Excellent subtest construct correlation with age (0-71 months) (Reflexes=0.88, Stationary=0.87, Locomotion=0.93, Object Manipulation=0.91, Grasping=0.80, Visual-Motor Integration=0.93)

PDMS-2 Translated into Portuguese: (Saraiva et al, 2011)

• Excellent to Adequate Confirmatory factor analysis (Satorra-Bentler x²=3.3, p=0.349; CFI=1.0, I=0.99, NNFI=0.99, RMSEA=0.013) support that Portuguese version displays same construct and number of items as PDMS-2 (Folio & Fewell, 2000)

PDMS-2 Administration Manual: (Folio & Fewell, 2000; Male n=1,008; Female n=995; European American n=1,367; African American n=273; Hispanic American n=262; Speech Language Disorder n=100; Physical Disorder n=41)

• Content validity was examined by different quantitative statistical analyses as well as through qualitative analyses. The rationale that underlies selection of items and the choice for PDMS-2’s composite score is described; validity of items is ultimately supported by results of conventional item analysis procedures and Item Response Theory (IRT) analyses used to choose items during the developmental stages of test construction; finally, the validity of items is reinforced by the results of differential item functioning analysis used to show the absence of bias in a test’s items.

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang et al, 2012)

• No significant floor effect at any of the three time points (Time Period 1=10.5%, Time Period 2=16.8%, Time Period 3=18.8 %) (Wuang et al, 2012)
• No significant ceiling effect at any of the three time points (Time Period 1=12.6%, Time Period 2=13.6%, Time Period 3=17.4%) (Wuang et al, 2012)

Children with Developmental Delays: (Maring & Elbaum, 2007)

• To reject a null hypothesis with a power level of 0.8 and a significance level of 0.05, a sample size of 30 was determined to be adequate if the effect size of the paired t test is medium to high (d=0.70) and the magnitude of the association is medium to large (r=0.50)

Intellectual Disabilities: (Wuang et al, 2012)

• Moderate responsiveness in detecting changes in a 6-month interval (ES=0.74; SRM = 0.65)