Accuracy of motor assessment in the diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder

5Citations
Citations of this article
45Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the accuracy of motor assessment tools listed in Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: a guideline for diagnosis across the lifespan (Canadian Guideline) for the purpose of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) diagnosis. Specifically, we aimed to determine: 1) diagnostic accuracy of motor assessment tools and subtests; 2) accuracy of multiple subtests versus total scores; and 3) accuracy of alternate cut-offs. Methods: Cross-sectional diagnostic study of 63 children aged 6-17 years. Diagnostic accuracy and alternate cut-offs were calculated for the Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd edition (MABC-2), Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, 2nd edition Short Form (BOT-2SF) and Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration, 6th edition (BeeryVMI-6). Results: The MABC-2 total motor score was more sensitive (0.30; 95% CI 0.17-0.46; p < 0.01) to motor impairment in the presence of FASD than the BOT-2SF (0.02; 95% CI 0.00-0.12) at the 2nd percentile (-2SD). The MABC-2 total motor score was more accurate than any combination of subtest scores. The Motor Coordination subtest of the BeeryVMI-6 (BeeryMC) at the 5th percentile (- 1.5SD) (sensitivity 0.68, specificity 0.90) was the most accurate subtest. Conclusions: The BOT-2SF was an inaccurate assessment tool for FASD diagnosis. The MABC-2 total motor score was the most accurate using current guidelines, though its sensitivity was still low. Further investigation into inclusion of single subtests and/or using a less conservative cut-off in the Canadian Guideline is warranted.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Johnston, D., Branton, E., Rasmuson, L., Schell, S., Gross, D. P., & Pritchard-Wiart, L. (2019). Accuracy of motor assessment in the diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. BMC Pediatrics, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-019-1542-3

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free