To examine whether the Canadian normative values of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) are appropriate for Dutch infants.
In a cross-sectional study, 499 infants developing typically (0.5-19 months) were assessed using the AIMS home video method. The scaling method was used for calculating item locations of the Dutch sample, and Welch test to compare Canadian and Dutch raw scores.
AIMS items (45 of 58) met the criterion for stable regression to calculate item locations of the Dutch data set and compare these with the Canadian data set. Dutch infants passed 42 of 45 items at an older age. Most monthly age groups of Dutch infants had lower mean AIMS scores.
The Canadian norms are not appropriate for the Dutch study sample. Dutch infants appear to develop in a similar sequence but at a slower rate. This has implications regarding the clinical use of the AIMS in the Netherlands.
To examine if the Canadian normative values of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale are appropriate for Dutch infants.
Research Group Lifestyle and Health (Mss Suir, Boonzaaijer, and Nijmolen, and Dr Nuysink), Institute of Human Movement Studies, HU University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Pedagogical and Educational Sciences (Mss Suir and Boonzaaijer), Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Biostatistics and Data Management, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (Dr Westers).
Correspondence: Imke Suir, MSc, Department of Lifestyle and Health, University of Applied Science, Heidelberglaan 7, Postbus 12011, 3501 AA Utrecht, the Netherlands (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Grant Support: This research was funded by the Scientific College of Physiotherapy (WCF) and by a personal PhD grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citation appears in the printed text and is provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Web site (www.pedpt.com).
The authors have stated that they had no interest that could be perceived as posing a conflict or bias.