PTOTOtherJournal of rehabilitation medicine2025

ABILHAND-kids young CP: a measure of manual ability in young children with cerebral palsy aged 2 to 7.

Carlyne Arnould, Julie Paradis, Massimo Penta and 2 others

PMID 40833249

WHAT IT FOUND

A new 17-item caregiver questionnaire measures manual ability in children with cerebral palsy aged 2 to 7.

It covers daily tasks like dressing and eating with high precision, filling the gap for younger children before standard school-age tools apply.

Key findings

01The ABILHAND-Kids Young CP scale consists of 17 items selected from an initial 80, covering daily activities such as eating, dressing, and play for children aged 2 to 7.

02The scale demonstrates high internal consistency, allowing clinicians to statistically distinguish between 5 and 6 levels of manual ability within the sample.

03Children attending regular school had significantly higher manual ability scores (median 58.7%) than those in special education (37%) or not schooled (25.5%).

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study used a convenience sample, which may introduce selection bias. The scale was not sensitive enough for children with the most severe manual ability impairment (MACS Level V), as all children at this level scored at the floor. Test-retest reliability and responsiveness to change have not yet been established. The sample underrepresented 2-year-olds and children with MACS Level V, so usability for these groups needs further investigation.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The research received no specific grant from any funding agency.

The easy way to misread this

Do not assume this scale can measure change over time or detect small improvements in therapy outcomes. The study did not test responsiveness or test-retest reliability, so it currently serves as a snapshot of ability rather than a proven tool for tracking progress.

Read it on PubMed →