Investigating Subtypes of Motor Skills and Activities of Daily Living among Young Children with Motor Delay.
Keisuke Irie, Kohei Mukaiyama, Reika Yamashita and 4 others
PMID 37360553WHAT IT FOUND
Children with motor delay fell into three groups based on fine and gross motor skills.
The group with poor skills in both areas dressed significantly worse than the group with relatively good motor function. No differences appeared in eating or toileting, suggesting daily activity assessments may miss quality issues.
Key findings
01Cluster analysis identified three distinct subtypes of motor delay: one with poor fine motor skills, one with poor gross motor skills, and one with poor skills in both areas.
02Children with poor skills in both fine and gross motor areas scored significantly lower than the relatively able group on lower body dressing tasks.
03The subtypes did not differ significantly in eating or toileting independence, possibly because the assessment tool measured completion rather than movement quality.
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.
What it does not show
The sample size was small (45 children) and recruited from a single school, limiting how well the results apply to other populations. The study only included children aged 3 to 6 years, so it is unclear if older children would fall into the same motor subtypes. The WeeFIM assessment tool measures whether a task is completed, not how well it is performed, which may have masked differences in activities like eating. The cut-off values for the cluster analysis are unknown, meaning the specific boundaries between subtypes are not defined for clinical use.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that a child who performs well on basic mobility or eating tasks has no significant motor delay. The study found that children with the most severe motor difficulties showed deficits in dressing but not in eating or toileting, likely because the assessment tool did not measure the quality or coordination of those movements.