Reliability and validity of the East Asian children's version of mini-MACS in children with cerebral palsy.
Xiaohui Hou, Huiying Qiu, Liru Liu and 5 others
PMID 36478790WHAT IT FOUND
The Chinese version of the Mini-MACS reliably classifies manual ability in children with cerebral palsy.
Parents and therapists agreed closely, and the tool correlated with both the Nine-hole Peg Test and the Gross Motor Function Classification System.
Key findings
01Agreement between parents and occupational therapists was 89.4%, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.973.
02The Mini-MACS showed moderate correlations with the Nine-hole Peg Test (r = 0.566–0.582) and the Gross Motor Function Classification System (r = 0.596–0.626).
03Test-retest reliability for parents over two weeks was high, with 93.3% agreement and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.985.
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 was not evenly distributed; there were far fewer children with severe motor impairments (GMFCS levels IV–V) and fewer Japanese children than Chinese children. Only parents repeated the assessment after two weeks. Therapists did not do a test-retest, so we do not know if the therapists' ratings would have stayed the same over time. The Nine-hole Peg Test measures specific fine motor dexterity, while the Mini-MACS looks at general daily performance. This difference in focus explains why their correlation was only moderate. The study included children who could understand simple instructions and had normal vision and hearing, so it does not tell us how well the tool works for children with additional sensory or cognitive barriers.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the Mini-MACS and Gross Motor Function Classification System always match. The correlation was moderate, and many children in GMFCS level II were rated as having better manual ability (Mini-MACS level I), so you must assess both separately.