“How could I apply this information?”
Previous studies have shown that infants with Down syndrome (DS) have lower motor skills than their peers that are typically developing (TD), particularly with reduced general movements and postural control. This research adds to our body of knowledge on measurement of motor development in early infancy. The authors identified that the Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP) was sensitive to detect delays in infants with DS between 34 weeks' postconceptional age and 4 months' postterm as compared with their peers that were TD. From their findings, clinical recommendations were given for intervention for neck rotation, visual tracking and activation of neck and trunk flexors, and elongation of spinal extensors to elicit head control. More translation of the clinical relevance of the study's findings of delay in postural control and motor coordination in infants with DS would assist clinicians to plan and implement targeted therapeutic programs and to use the TIMP to measure and evaluate individual progress.
“What should I be mindful about when applying this information?”
The authors collected data from infants in central Poland, with the findings referenced to US norms. Therefore, knowledge and understanding of the effect of socioeconomic and other potential factors that influence childhood development in different regions of the world is recommended before clinicians apply the results in their own context. Furthermore, the authors suggest their results indicate that motor development of infants with DS shows a linear progression of improvement with age; however, increased sample size and longitudinal studies are needed to justify this statement. In the literature and in practice, other tests are commonly used to identify motor delay in children with DS—General Movements (Prechtl Method) in early infancy, and the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-III, the Alberta Infant Motor Scale and Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. The authors did not specify their rationale for choice of the TIMP over other tests. This rationale would be useful to help clinicians reason through their own choice of assessment tool. It may be that factors such as age range, test cost, and training requirements played a factor in the test choice.
Jane Hamer, NZRPT
Waitemata District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand
Hilda Mulligan, PhD
University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
