Synchronous telehealth and face-to-face administration of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale.

The sample was highly educated (97.6% with postsecondary education) and predominantly English-speaking (87.8%), recruited via social media. Results may not generalize to families with lower literacy, limited English proficiency, or less access to technology. Assessments were not simultaneous; they were separated by up to two weeks. For rapidly developing infants (especially at 4 months), this time gap may account for some score differences rather than the delivery method itself. The study used the Canadian norms for the AIMS. Cultural differences in infant handling or motor development milestones were not addressed, though raw score agreement was the focus. Only four experienced paediatric physiotherapists conducted the assessments. It is unclear if less experienced clinicians would achieve the same level of agreement via telehealth.

One author (AJS) is the associate editor of the AIMS manual. The study was funded by the Centre of Research Excellence of Newborn Medicine, the University of Melbourne, and the Physiotherapy Research Foundation.

Do not assume telehealth is equally reliable for all infants. The study found only moderate agreement for 4-month-olds, which worsened significantly if the two assessments were more than a week apart. This suggests rapid developmental changes, not just the medium, affect scores in very young infants.