Gross Motor Family Report: Refinement and evaluation of psychometric properties

Elton D. D. Magalhães, Peter Rosenbaum, Marilyn Wright, F. Virginia Wright, Lesley Pritchard, Kennea M. A. Ayupe, Ana Carolina de Campos, Rosane S. Morais, Hercules R. Leite, Paula S. C. Chagas

Abstract

Aim
To refine the Gross Motor Family Report (GM-FR) using parents' input and to evaluate its psychometric properties.

Method
In this measurement study, 12 parents of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP), aged 2 to 18 years, classified in all levels of the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), were interviewed about their experience completing the GM-FR (content validity). Parents' feedback was used to refine the measure which was then completed by 146 families to evaluate internal consistency, and discriminative and concurrent validity. Forty-six parents completed the GM-FR again, 7 to 30 days later, to evaluate test–retest reliability.

Results
GM-FR scoring, pictures, descriptions, and the total number of items were revised based on parents' feedback. The GM-FR version 2.0 demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.99), no floor/ceiling effects, and excellent test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.99). GM-FR scores discriminated between GMFCS levels (p less than 0.05) and were strongly negatively correlated with GMFCS level (r = −0.92; p less than 0.001). GM-FR scores correlated positively and strongly with the Gross Motor Function Measure-66 (r = 0.94; p less than 0.001) and the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory – Computer Adaptive Test mobility domain (r = 0.93; p less than 0.001).

Interpretation
Active participation of families in the GM-FR's development facilitated creation of a family-friendly instrument. This study provides strong evidence of reliability and validity to support GM-FR use in clinical practice and research for assessing gross motor performance of children and adolescents with CP.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dmcn.16042

Professor Gareth Baynam is a globally recognised clinical geneticist, researcher, and advocate for rare diseases. He is the Director of the Rare Care Centre at Perth Children's Hospital and the Head of the Western Australian Register of Developmental Anomalies.

With a career dedicated to improving the diagnosis, management, and care of individuals with rare and genetic conditions, he has been at the forefront of integrating cutting-edge technologies such as genomics, artificial intelligence, and precision medicine into healthcare.

Professor Baynam is also a leader in Indigenous health initiatives, championing equitable access to rare disease diagnostics and treatment. Through his work with organizations such as the Global Commission to End the Diagnostic Odyssey for Children with a Rare Disease and the European Rare Diseases Research Alliance (ERDERA), he continues to drive global collaborations and innovations that aim to transform rare disease care.

Anita R Gross, Kenneth A Olson, Jan Pool, Annalie Basson, Derek Clewley, Jenifer L Dice, Nikki Milne

• PMID: 38855972
• PMCID: PMC11216248
• DOI: 10.1080/10669817.2024.2332026

Abstract

Introduction: An international taskforce of clinician-scientists was formed by specialty groups of World Physiotherapy - International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) & International Organisation of Physiotherapists in Paediatrics (IOPTP) - to develop evidence-based practice position statements directing physiotherapists clinical reasoning for the safe and effective use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for paediatric populations (<18 years) with varied musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions.

Method: A three-stage guideline process using validated methodology was completed: 1. Literature review stage (one scoping review, two reviews exploring psychometric properties); 2. Delphi stage (one 3-Round expert Delphi survey); and 3. Refinement stage (evidence-to-decision summative analysis, position statement development, evidence gap map analyses, and multilayer review processes).

Results: Evidence-based practice position statements were developed to guide the appropriate use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for paediatric populations. All were predicated on clinicians using biopsychosocial clinical reasoning to determine when the intervention is appropriate.1. It is not recommended to perform:• Spinal manipulation and mobilisation on infants.• Cervical and lumbar spine manipulation on children.•Spinal manipulation and mobilisation on infants, children, and adolescents for non-musculoskeletal paediatric conditions including asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, breastfeeding difficulties, cerebral palsy, infantile colic, nocturnal enuresis, and otitis media.2. It may be appropriate to treat musculoskeletal conditions including spinal mobility impairments associated with neck-back pain and neck pain with headache utilising:• Spinal mobilisation and manipulation on adolescents;• Spinal mobilisation on children; or• Thoracic manipulation on children for neck-back pain only.3. No high certainty evidence to recommend these interventions was available.Reports of mild to severe harms exist; however, risk rates could not be determined.

Conclusion: Specific directives to guide physiotherapists' clinical reasoning on the appropriate use of spinal manipulation or mobilisation were identified. Future research should focus on trials for priority conditions (neck-back pain) in children and adolescents, psychometric properties of key outcome measures, knowledge translation, and harms.