Reproducibility of the Motor Optimality Score-Revised in infants with an increased risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.
Carly Luke, Arend F Bos, Michelle Jackman and 7 others
PMID 39928842WHAT IT FOUND
For infants at risk of neurodevelopmental problems, six trained clinicians could disagree on total movement quality, especially when fidgety movements were included.
Scoring two videos and reaching group agreement made scores more consistent.
Key findings
01Agreement on the total MOS-R was fair when fidgety movements were included and good when fidgety movements were excluded.
02Assessors who scored two videos per infant had better agreement than assessors who scored one video, and agreement was excellent when only consensus scores were analysed.
03The most consistent subcategories were observed movement patterns and movement character; postural patterns were least consistent, and additional atypical postures had poor to fair agreement.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
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
Only 30 infants were included, and the study could not analyse whether MOS-R scores predicted 2-year developmental outcomes. Eight infants were excluded because their videos were not scoreable, so the findings apply to infants with adequate video quality. Agreement was lower for infants born very preterm than for infants not born very preterm, and it was lower for infants with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes than for typically developing infants. The assessors were advanced GMA trained, regularly calibrated, and familiar with the MOS-R, so results may not apply to clinicians with less training. Consensus scoring was very reliable, but it may not be feasible where only one trained assessor is available. The fidgety movements item is heavily weighted, and including or excluding it changed total-score reliability.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Cerebral Palsy Alliance Research Foundation, and Perpetual. No other conflicts of interest were stated.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the MOS-R as a precise single-assessor test. The combined total score had only fair agreement when fidgety movements were included, and the limits of agreement were wide; better agreement required consensus or scoring two videos.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →