Concurrent and Predictive Validities of the Bayley

Motor Scale and the Peabody Developmental Motor

Scales
Robert J Palisano
PHYS THER. 1986; 66:1714-1719.

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, can
be found online at: http://ptjournal.apta.org/content/66/11/1714
Collections

This article, along with others on similar topics, appears

in the following collection(s):
Motor Control and Motor Learning
Motor Development
Tests and Measurements

e-Letters

To submit an e-Letter on this article, click here or click on

"Submit a response" in the right-hand menu under
"Responses" in the online version of this article.

E-mail alerts

Sign up here to receive free e-mail alerts

Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on March 12, 2015

Concurrent and Predictive Validities of the Bayley

Motor Scale and the Peabody Developmental Motor
Scales
ROBERT J. PALISANO
Concurrent and predictive validities of the Bayley Motor Scale and the Peabody
Developmental Motor Scales were examined by administering both tests to 23
full-term and 21 healthy premature infants at 12, 15, and 18 months of age. For
both groups, a correlation analysis of age-equivalent scores indicated Bayley
scores had good to high correlation with Peabody gross motor scores (range, r
= .78 to r = .96) and unacceptable correlation with Peabody fine motor scores
(range, r = .20 to r = .57). When results were reported using standardized
quotients, mean Bayley quotients for the full-term infant group were significantly
higher than Peabody gross motor quotients. Prediction of motor development at
18 months of age was limited (range, r = .25 to r = .60), with the exception of
Peabody fine motor scores for the premature infant group (r = .75). This study
provides evidence of concurrent validity between Bayley motor and Peabody
gross motor age-equivalent scores, and it suggests the need for further testing,
using separate assessments of gross motor and fine motor ability, to determine
motor development at later ages.
Key Words: Child development, Growth, Infant, Motor skills.

Many pediatric physical therapists are

involved in the evaluation of full-term
and premature infants who are at risk
because of a delay or disorder in motor
development. An important aspect of
the physical therapist's evaluation of the
high-risk infant is the administration of
motor assessments that provide information pertinent to determining developmental status and making recommendations for management. When
functional ability is documented, the results of motor development assessments
complement findings obtained from the
evaluation of muscle tone, reflexes,
righting reactions, and equilibrium responses. Knowledge of an infant's functional ability is helpful particularly in
interpreting the significance of questionable findings for muscle tone and automatic motor responses, results that may

Dr. Palisano is Assistant Professor, Program in

Physical Therapy, Hahnemann University, Broad
and Vine, Philadelphia, PA 19101-1192 (USA).
This study was conducted while he was a doctoral
student at Sargent College of Allied Health Professions, Boston University, Boston, MA.
This study was supported in part by Project No.
901, Division of Maternal and Child Health Services, Department of Health and Human Services,
and by an educational grant from the Foundation
for Physical Therapy.
This article was submitted July 12, 1985; was
with the author for revision 16 weeks; and was
accepted March 14, 1986. Potential Conflict of Interest: 4.

1714

be transient or may become less pronounced over time.1,2 The reliance on

developmental testing to assist in making clinical decisions, however, entails
the responsibility of selecting assessment
methods that yield reliable and valid
measurements of motor development.
Conclusions about an infant's motor
development level or developmental
quotient should be based only on the
results of an assessment involving 1) a
standardized administration procedure
and 2) a normative sample that reflects
the cultural background of the infants
for whom the assessment is being used.3
The Motor Scale of the Bayley Scales of
Infant Development4 is, perhaps, the
most widely used standardized motor
scale that was normalized using American infants. Normalized between 1958
and 1962 on 1,262 infants aged 2 to 30
months, the Bayley Motor Scale contains 81 items scored on a pass-fail basis,
69 of which measure gross motor behaviors. Testing takes 15 to 20 minutes
to complete, and results are expressed
either by a standardized psychomotor
developmental index (PDI) or by
an age-equivalent score. The Bayley
Motor Scale has been used in the research of developmental outcomes for
high-risk infants, particularly premature
infants,5,6 and to measure the effects of
treatment in infants with Down syn-

drome.7 Although widely used, the Bayley Motor Scale contains a small number of items for each level of development and omits stages in the motor
developmental sequence. For example,
it contains no items for running or kicking, and a single item incorporates all
methods of prewalking progression (eg,
creeping, crawling, hitching on buttocks). The Bayley Motor Scale, therefore, does not provide an in-depth motor assessment nor does it delineate gross
motor and fine motor development.
In contrast to the Bayley Motor Scale,
the revised Peabody Developmental
Motor Scales8 have been standardized
recently on a nationwide sample of 617
infants and children aged 1 through 83
months and consist of separate Gross
Motor and Fine Motor Scales, allowing
for a more detailed assessment of motor
development. The Gross Motor Scale
is divided into five skill categories
(reflexes, balance, nonlocomotor, locomotor, and receipt and propulsion of
objects), and the Fine Motor Scale is
divided into four skill categories (grasping, hand use, eye-hand coordination,
and manual dexterity). The Gross Motor Scale contains 10 items at each age
level, and the Fine Motor Scale contains
either 6 or 8 items at each age level. Test
items are scored on a 0- to 2-point scale
with a score of 1 indicating partial suc-

Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on March 12, 2015

PHYSICAL THERAPY

RESEARCH
cess. Both scales can be administered in
45 to 60 minutes, and they present test
results in a variety of ways, including a
standardized developmental motor quotient (DMQ) and an age-equivalent
score. Based on the greater number of
test items and the partial credit an infant
receives for emerging skills, the Peabody
scales are more sensitive potentially to
change in motor development than is
the Bayley Motor Scale. The ability to
measure small changes in motor development is an important quality of an
assessment tool that is used to monitor
progress in infants demonstrating delays
in development.
Although the more recently normalized Peabody Developmental Motor
Scales offer potential advantages for
testing high-risk infants, information on
concurrent validity is necessary to determine whether Peabody test results are
comparable to results obtained with the
more established Bayley Motor Scale.
The purpose of this study was to compare concurrent and predictive validities
of the Bayley Motor Scale and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales by
administering both tests to groups of
full-term and premature infants at 12,
15, and 18 months of age. Concurrent
validity is concerned with the correspondence between a test's results and
the results obtained with a previously
available test that is considered reliable
and valid. Predictive validity, as it pertains to this study, indicates the extent
to which motor development can be
predicted from knowledge of prior test
performance.9 Folio and Fewell concluded that concurrent validity exists for
the Bayley Motor Scale and the Peabody
Developmental Motor Scales on the basis of statistically significant (p = .02)
correlation coefficients of .36 (Bayley
Motor Scale and Peabody Gross Motor
Scale) and .37 (Bayley Motor Scale and
Peabody Fine Motor Scale).8 When validity is investigated with the correlation
analysis, however, the magnitude of the
correlation coefficient is the most critical factor; a correlation coefficient below
.60 is not considered to be acceptable,
regardless of the level of statistical significance.10 I also investigated the concurrent validity of the Bayley Motor
Scale and the Peabody Developmental
Motor Scales by examining the magnitude of the correlation coefficients and
the mean scores obtained for each assessment tool. Additionally, by testing
each infant three times, I determined

the ability of each assessment tool to

predict motor development over a sixmonth period and to measure change in
motor development. The clinical implications of the results of my study are
emphasized in this article.
METHOD
Subjects
The subjects were 23 full-term infants
(13 male, 10 female) and 21 premature
infants (12 male, 9 female) who were
born in 1982 at one of four Boston
hospitals. Data were collected as part of
a longitudinal study of how to account
for gestational age at birth when evaluating premature infant motor development.11 Approval for the study was
granted by each hospital's human subjects committee, and a consent form was
signed by a parent of each infant. The
full-term infants had an uncomplicated
neonatal history and no medical problems during the first year. Based on neonatal history and health during the first
year, the premature infants were considered to be at low risk for a disorder in
motor development. Premature infants
selected for the study did not have any
of the following medical problems that
can contribute to a poor developmental
outcome12: neonatal asphyxia, respiratory complications (infants received a
maximum of three days of low-concentration, supplemental hood oxygen
while in the incubator), seizures, intracranial hemorrhage, congenital anomalies, or orthopedic deformities. The premature group had a mean gestational
age at birth of 31.3 weeks (s = 1.0) and
a mean birth weight of 1,602.5 g (s =
270.6).
Procedure
The Bayley Motor Scale and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales were
administered to all infants within a twoweek period after their 12-month, 15month, and 18-month birthdays. When
premature infants are tested, developmental quotients commonly are based
on adjusted age, which accounts for gestational age at birth.13 (An infant born
two months prematurely and tested at
12 months' chronological age would
have an adjusted age of 10 months.) To
compare this practice for the two assessment tools examined in this study, I
based the developmental quotients on
adjusted age for the premature infants.

The mean adjusted ages of the premature group were 10, 13, and 16 months
for each successive test session.
Before the testing, I established interrater reliability by testing 10 infants not
included in the study, and a second
therapist independently scored each infant's performance. Reliability was determined by computing the percentage
of agreement on items actually tested.
The mean percentages of agreement
were 90.0 for the Bayley Motor Scale,
87.5 for the Peabody Gross Motor Scale,
and 90.8 for the Peabody Fine Motor
Scale.
I administered all tests, which were
performed in each infant's home with at
least one parent present. A typical test
session required one hour to complete.
All test items were administered and
scored according to the standardized
procedures contained in the test manuals. Neither the Bayley nor the Peabody scales require that items be administered in a specific order; therefore,
the following procedures were implemented to improve data collection.
Items from the two assessment tools
were interspersed and administered by
developmental position (gross motor) or
materials presented (fine motor). This
procedure minimized the time required
for testing and, thus, optimized the infants' performances. Several motor behaviors on the two scales are similar,
differing only in criteria for a passing
score. For example, item 46 ("Walks
alone") on the Bayley Motor Scale requires an infant to take 3 independent
steps, whereas item 66 ("Walking") on
the Peabody Gross Motor Scale requires
the infant to take 4 or 5 independent
steps. Consequently, motor behaviors
common to both scales were scored simultaneously using the specific criteria
for each scale. This procedure eliminated unnecessary repetition and also
ensured that differences in test results
were not attributable to variability in an
infant's performance.
Data Analysis
Each infant's age-equivalent scores
and standardized motor quotients were
calculated for both the Bayley Motor
Scale and the Peabody Developmental
Motor Scales. The Bayley PDI is determined for age intervals of 1 month. The
Peabody DMQ is determined for age
intervals of varying length. The age levels that pertain to this study are 8

Volume 66 / Number 11, November 1986

Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on March 12, 2015

1715

through 9 months, 10 through 11

months, 12 through 14 months, 15
through 17 months, and 18 through 23
months.
Concurrent and predictive validities
were examined using correlation analysis, statistical analysis of mean scores,
and change in mean age-equivalent
scores. Correlation analysis was performed using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. The magnitude of each correlation coefficient
was interpreted using criteria for examining validity proposed by Meyer10
(Tab. 1). Analysis of mean scores is essential for judging concurrent validity.
Regardless of the magnitude of the correlation coefficients, the clinical interpretation of the results would be affected
if mean scores were significantly higher
or lower for one of the assessment tools.
The significance of differences in mean
Bayley motor and Peabody gross motor
scores was examined for each group by
a 2 3 (test age) mixed analysis of
variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on age. For each assessment tool,
the significance of the age-related
changes in each group's mean ageequivalent scores was tested by a onefactor ANOVA for repeated measures,
and significant age effects were analyzed
further by the Newman-Keuls method
of multiple comparisons. The .05 probability level was used to test for statistical significance.

RESULTS

TABLE 1
Criteria for Assessing Validity Based on Magnitude of Correlation Coefficient10
Range of Correlation Coefficients

Correlation Between Test Scores

.85 or above
.80-.84
70-.79
.60-.69
.59 or below

high
very good
fair to good
poor
unacceptable

TABLE 2
Concurrent Validity of Bayley Motor and Peabody Gross Motor (GM) antd Fine Motor (FM)
Age-Equivalent Scores
Group
Full-term
(n = 23)
Premature
(n = 21)
a

12 Months

15 Months

18 Months

r
.95a
.20
.84a
.49b

r
.83a
.31
.96a
.57c

r
.78a
.40
.84a
.30

Scales
Bayley, Peabody GM
Bayley, Peabody FM
Bayley, Peabody GM
Bayley, Peabody FM

P<.Q01.
p < .05.
p < .01.

b
c

TABLE 3
Mean Bayley Motor and Peabody Gross Motor (GM) and Pine Motor (FM) Age-Equivalent
Scores of Full-Term and Premature Infants
12 Months
Group
Full-term
(n = 23)
Premature
(n = 21)

Scale

15 Months

Bayley
Peabody GM
Peabody FM
Bayley
Peabody GM
Peabody FM

1.5
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3

13.0
12.8
13.6
10.0
10.2
10.7

18 Months

16.5
15.7
17.0
13.4
13.0
14.3

2.7
1.8
1.5
2.3
1.9
1.9

3.3
1.8
1.4
2.2
2.3
1.5

20.6
19.1
19.1
16.2
16.1
17.2

TABLE 4
Concurrent Validity of Bayley Psychomotor Developmental Index (PDI) and Peabody
Gross Motor (GM) and Fine Motor (FM) Developmental Motor Quotients (DMQs)

Concurrent Validity of AgeEquivalent Scores

Correlation analysis indicated good to
high correlation between Bayley motor
and Peabody gross motor age-equivalent
scores for both groups with correlation
coefficients ranging from .78 to .96
(Tab. 2). The correlation between Bayley motor and Peabody fine motor ageequivalent scores was not acceptable for
either group; only the correlation coefficient for the premature group at 15
months of age was greater than .50.
Mean Bayley motor and Peabody gross
motor age-equivalent scores differed for
the premature group by no greater than
0.4 months and for the full-time group
by 0.2 months, 0.8 months, and 1.5
months, respectively, for the three test
ages (Tab. 3). For each group, the
ANOVA indicated that mean age-equivalent scores for the two assessment tools
did not differ significantly (full-term

Group
Full-term
(n = 23)
Premature
(n = 21)
a
b

12 Months

15 Months

18 Months

r
.77a
.34

Quotients
PDI,
PDI,
PDI,
PDI,

DMQ
DMQ
DMQ
DMQ

GM
FM
GM
FM

.93

.86

.17

.20

.63 b

.92 a
.59b

.23

.88 a

.32

p < .001.
p < .01.

group: F = 2.21; df= 1,44; p = NS;

premature group: F = 0.02; df= 1,40; p
= NS).

Concurrent Validity of
Developmental Motor Quotients
Similar to the age-equivalent scores,
correlation analysis indicated good to
high correlation (with one exception)
between Bayley PDIs and Peabody gross
motor DMQs, whereas correlations be-

tween PDIs andfinemotor DMQs were

unacceptable (Tab. 4). Correlation coefficients between PDIs and gross motor
DMQs ranged from .63 to .93 with only
two correlation coefficients below .86.
Poor correlation between PDIs and
gross motor DMQs was found only for
the premature group at 12 months of
age (r = .63). All correlation coefficients
between PDIs and fine motor DMQs
were below .50 with the exception of the
PHYSICAL THERAPY

1716
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on March 12, 2015

RESEARCH
TABLE 5
Mean Bayley Psychomotor Developmental Indexes (PDIs) and Peabody Gross Motor (GM) and Fine Motor (FM) Developmental Motor
Quotients (DMQs) of Full-Term and Premature Infants

Premature
(n = 21)

15 Months
s

104.4
91.7
96.7
96.9
90.1
95.7

PDI
DMQ GM
DMQ FM
PDI
DMQ GM
DMQ FM

Full-term
(n = 23)

12 Months

Quotienta

Group

s
16.4
11.9
10.6
19.4
16.0
12.4

111.2
94.0
98.5
102.0
91.8
101.7

12.9
12.9
9.7
14.8
15.5
10.9

18 Months
s
112.1
96.1
87.4
101.7
97.1
99.7

19.9
13.3
8.9
14.4
14.2
9.9

Quotients of premature group based on adjusted age.

TABLE 6
Prediction of Bayley Motor and Peabody Gross Motor (GM) and Fine Motor (FM) Age-Equivalent Scores of Full-Term and Premature
Infants
Bayley Motor
Group
Full-term
(n = 23)
Premature
(n = 21)
a

b
c

Age
(mo)

Peabody GM

Peabody FM

15 Months

18 Months

15 Months

18 Months

15 Months

18 Months

12
15
12
15

.70

.64b

.54
.59b
.56b
.66b

.85

.73a

.60
.58b
.54b
.72a

.65

.77a

.25
.35c
.75a
.38c

p < .001.

p < .01.
p < .05.

correlation coefficient for the premature

group at 15 months of age (r = .59).
The mean PDIs were higher than the
mean gross motor DMQs (Tab. 5); all
mean quotients reported in this study,
however, were within the normal range.
The mean PDIs were 12.7 to 17.2 points
higher than the mean gross motor
DMQs for the full-term group and 4.6
to 10.2 points higher for the premature
group. The ANOVA for repeated measures (age) was highly significant for the
full-term group (F = 16.7; df= 1,44; p
< .001), but it was not significant for
the premature group (F = 2.92; df =
1,40; p = NS). For comparison, the Bayley Motor Scale had a normative mean
PDI of 100 and a standard deviation of
164; the Peabody Developmental Motor
Scales had a normative mean DMQ of
100 and a standard deviation of 15.8
Therefore, when mean quotients of the
premature group were based on adjusted
age, all mean PDIs and DMQs reported
in this article were within the normal
range.

Prediction of Age-Equivalent
Scores
Predictive ability of 18-month Bayley
motor and Peabody gross motor and

fine motor age-equivalent scores from

12-month scores was unacceptable with
the exception of the premature group's
Peabody fine motor scores (r = .75) and
the full-term group's Peabody gross motor scores (r = .60) (Tab. 6). For the 3month intervals, predictive ability of
Peabody gross motor scores ranged from
unacceptable to high (range, r = .58 to
r = .85), whereas predictive ability of
Bayley motor scores ranged from unacceptable to fair (range, r = .59 to r =
.70). The predictive ability of 15-month
Peabody fine motor age-equivalent
scores from 12-month scores was good
for the premature group (r = .77) and
poor for the full-term group (r = .65).
The predictive ability of 18-month Peabody fine motor scores from 15-month
scores was unacceptable for both groups.

Change in Mean Age-Equivalent

Scores
Between each test age, the full-term
and premature infants made from 2.8
to 4.1 months' gain in mean Bayley
motor age-equivalent scores, from 2.8
to 3.4 months' gain in mean Peabody
gross motor age-equivalent scores, and
from 2.1 to 3.6 months' gain in mean
Peabody fine motor age-equivalent

scores, gains that were significant for

each group (Tab. 3). For the full-term
group, the age effect was well above the
level required for statistical significance
for the Bayley Motor Scale (F = 102.5;
df = 2,44; p < .001), the Peabody Gross
Motor Scale (F = 232.7; df = 2,44; p <
.001), and the Peabody Fine Motor
Scale (F = 155.9; df = 2,44; p < .001).
Similarly, for the premature group, the
age effect was highly significant for the
Bayley Motor Scale (F = 121.8; df =
2,40; p < .001), the Peabody Gross Motor Scale (F = 137.7; df = 2,40; p <
.001), and the Peabody Fine Motor
Scale (F = 214.2; df = 2,40; p < .001).
For each assessment tool, multiple comparison tests revealed that mean ageequivalent scores were significantly
higher at each successive test age (p <
.01). The mean age-equivalent scores of
the full-term group generally were 2 to
3 months' higher than those of the premature group, an anticipated finding
considering that the premature infants
were born an average of 2 months prematurely.

DISCUSSION
The results provide evidence of concurrent validity for Bayley motor and

Volume 66 / Number 11, November 1986

Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on March 12, 2015

1717

Peabody gross motor age-equivalent

scores. Correlation analysis revealed
that good to high correlation existed
between age-equivalent scores and that
mean age-equivalent scores for the two
assessments were not significantly different. The difference between mean
Bayley motor and Peabody gross motor
age-equivalent scores for the full-term
group, however, increased at each successive test age. The full-term group's
mean age-equivalent score of 20.6
months at 18 months of age suggests
that the Bayley Motor Scale may overestimate motor development at certain
age levels. Both groups of infants made
significant gains in mean Bayley motor
and mean Peabody gross motor and fine
motor age-equivalent scores during the
6-month period. The infants' rate of
development supports the concepts that
motor development is orderly and sequential and that motor abilities of
healthy infants increase with age, implying that both Bayley and Peabody ageequivalent scores provide valid measures of age-related change in motor development.
The correlation results for gross motor development are more favorable
than those reported by Folio and
Fewell8; however, the Peabody test manual does not describe the subjects tested
or present mean scores, preventing a
comparison of results. The low correlation between Bayley PDIs and Peabody
gross motor DMQs (r = .36) reported
by Folio and Fewell may reflect, in part,
their sample having included infants under 1 year of age who were administered
both gross motor and fine motor items
from the Bayley Motor Scale. Conversely, because the Bayley Motor Scale
contains no fine motor items above the
8.9-month age level, the infants in this
study almost exclusively were administered gross motor items from the Bayley
Motor Scale. The Bayley Motor Scale,
therefore, served as a measure of gross
motor development. Consequently, the
correlations between the Bayley motor
and Peabody gross motor scores were
higher than the correlations between the
Bayley motor and Peabody fine motor
scores. The unacceptable correlation between the Bayley motor and Peabody
fine motor scores reported by Folio and
Fewell8 and in this study suggests that
performance on gross motor items is not
related strongly to performance on fine
motor items. Therapists, therefore, are
encouraged to perform separate assess-

ments of gross motor and fine motor

development.
The significantly higher mean Bayley
PDIs achieved by the full-term group
pose a threat to concurrent validity
when Bayley motor and Peabody gross
motor results are expressed using standardized quotients. The difference in
mean quotients for the two assessment
tools may be attributable to the method
used to determine standardized quotients for the Peabody Developmental
Motor Scales. The Bayley PDI is based
on age-level intervals of 1 month,
whereas the Peabody DMQ is based on
variable and wide-ranging age levels.
The DMQ for a 12-month-old infant,
for example, is based on the performance of infants in the normative group
whose ages ranged from 12 to 14
months. In this study, the ages of the
full-term infants corresponded to the
youngest month of each age level for
each test session and, therefore, their
lower mean DMQs and inability to
achieve a mean DMQ of 100 are not
surprising.
The method of determining standardized quotients for the Peabody scales
also presents a problem when testing
premature infants. This problem was
avoided in this study by the selection of
chronological test ages that corresponded to the youngest month of an
age level. Depending on the chronological age of the premature infant, adjusting age to account for gestational age at
birth may not change the DMQ. For
example, an infant born 2 months prematurely and tested at 14 months'
chronological age would have an adjusted age of 12 months. The DMQ
would be determined for the 12- through
14-month age level and, therefore,
would be identical for both chronological and adjusted ages. In contrast, the
Bayley PDI would be higher when determined for adjusted age, as compared
with chronological age.
The findings of this study indicate
that, when results are expressed as standardized quotients, decisions regarding
an infant's motor developmental status
could differ depending on whether the
Bayley Motor Scale or Peabody Gross
Motor Scale is used. Standardized
DMQs are advantageous for determining whether an infant's motor development is within age expectations or for
presenting research findings. Alternately, age-equivalent scores are more
meaningful for infants whose motor de-

velopment is below the normal range of

variability. Age-equivalent scores also
provide a clearer indication of functional ability than do standardized
DMQs. Therapists may find that ageequivalent scores are more appropriate
than standardized quotients for clinical
use and, thus, avoid the problem of
interpreting differences between the
standardized quotients obtained with
the Bayley Motor Scale and the Peabody
Gross Motor Scale.
Neither Bayley nor Peabody 12month age-equivalent scores effectively
predicted motor development at 18
months of age in this study. Correlation
coefficients were higher between successive 3-month intervals, indicating that
the ability to predict motor development decreases as the timespan involved
increases. The variability associated
with infant development and differences
in the motor competencies required for
success at older age levels probably are
limiting factors in attempting to make
predictions. For the Bayley Motor Scale
or the Peabody Developmental Motor
Scales to be of value in predicting development at older ages, correlation
coefficients of .75 or greater must be
demonstrated between scores obtained
over periods of time when major
changes in motor ability occur (eg, at 3
and 12 months of age or at 12 and 24
months of age). Until evidence of predictive validity is demonstrated, the
Bayley Motor Scale and the Peabody
Developmental Motor Scales should be
used only to provide current information on the motor ability of an infant
relative to the performance of the normative group. Repeated testing is necessary to determine development at
older ages.
This study suggests that therapists
may choose between the Bayley Motor
Scale and the Peabody Developmental
Motor Scales when results are reported
using age-equivalent scores. The Bayley
Motor Scale may be the preferred assessment tool when time is restricted,
such as in infant follow-up clinics.
When evaluation of both gross motor
and fine motor development is desired,
however, the Peabody Developmental
Motor Scales may be more appropriate
than the Bayley Motor Scale. Additionally, the Peabody Developmental Motor
Scales may be selected when a more
thorough evaluation of motor development is indicated. The Peabody scales
also potentially are able to document

1718

PHYSICAL THERAPY
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on March 12, 2015

RESEARCH
development over relatively short periods of time and measure response to
physical therapy intervention.
In this study, changes in mean ageequivalent scores of healthy full-term
and premature infants were highly significant over a six-month period for
both the Bayley Motor Scale and the
Peabody Developmental Motor Scales.
These findings, however, may not be
generalizable to infants with identified
delays or disorders in motor development. Research with the experimental
edition of the Peabody Developmental
Motor Scales14 revealed statistically significant treatment effects for a group of
children with delayed development15
and a group of severely and profoundly
retarded nonambulatory children.16 The
results of these two studies suggest that
the Peabody scales are an appropriate
assessment tool for children with delays
or disorders in motor development. The
latter study especially is important because of the low levels of function in the
children tested. A criticism of normreferenced motor scales is that they are
not suitable for evaluating short-term
responses to treatment in nonambulatory children, particularly children with
cerebral palsy.17 Further research to examine the validity of using the Bayley
Motor Scale and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales to document developmental changes in high-risk infants
and infants with identified delays or disorders in motor development may aid
physical therapists in the proper selection of evaluation tools.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides evidence of concurrent validity for the Bayley Motor
Scale and the Peabody Gross Motor
Scales on the basis of age-equivalent
scores. The results also indicate that the
Bayley Motor Scale and the Peabody
Developmental Motor Scales effectively
measure age-related change in motor
development for healthy full-term and
premature infants but do not predict
motor development at later ages. When
the data are based on standardized quotients, however, problems may exist in
the clinical interpretation of the Peabody DMQ, presenting a threat to concurrent validity. This study suggests that
therapists should perform separate assessments of gross motor and fine motor
development and that repeated testing
is necessary to determine motor development at later ages. Further research is

needed to determine the validity of using the Bayley Motor Scale and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales to
measure change in motor development
for infants with identified delays or disorders in motor development.
Acknowledgment. I thank Dr. Stephen Haley, Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Therapy, Sargent
College of Allied Health Professions,
Boston University, for his advice in preparing this manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Amiel-Tison C: A method of neurologic evaluation within the first year of life. Curr Probl
Pediatr 7:1-50, 1976
2. Prechtl HFR: Assessment methods for the
newborn infant: A critical evaluation. In Stratton
P (ed): Psychobiology of the Human Newborn.
New York, NY, John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1982,
pp 21-52
3. Standards for Educational and Psychological
Tests. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association, 1974
4. Bayley N: The Bayley Scales of Infant Development. New York, NY, The Psychological
Corporation, 1969
5. Campbell SK, Wilhelm IJ: Development from
birth to 3 years of age of 15 children at high
risk for central nervous system dysfunction.
Phys Ther 65:463-469, 1985
6. Field TM, Dempsey JR, Shuman HH: Developmental follow-up of pre- and postterm infants. In Friedman SL, Sigman M (eds): Preterm
Birth and Psychological Development. New
York, NY, Academic Press Inc, 1981, pp 2 9 9 311
7. Harris SR: Effect of neurodevelopmental therapy on motor performance of infants with
Down's syndrome. Dev Med Child Neurol
23:477-483, 1981
8. Folio MR, Fewell RR: Peabody Developmental
Motor Scales and Activity Cards. Allen, TX,
Teaching Resources, 1983
9. Anastasi A: Psychological Testing, ed 5. New
York, NY, Macmillan Publishing Company,
1982, pp 137-144
10. Meyer CR: Measurement in Physical Education. New York, NY, The Ronald Press Company, 1974, pp 86-89
11. Palisano RJ: Use of chronological and adjusted
age to compare motor development of healthy
preterm infants to full-term infants. Dev Med
Child Neurol 28:180-187, 1986
12. Koops BL, Harmon RJ: Studies on long-term
outcome in newborns with birth weights under
1500 grams. Advances in Behavioral Pediatrics
1:1-28,1980
13. Gesell A, Amatruda CS: Developmental Diagnosis. New York, NY, Paul B. Haeber, 1947,
pp 290-295
14. Folio MR, Dubose RF: Peabody Developmental
Motor Scales (Revised Experimental Edition).
Nashville, TN, George Peabody College for
Teachers, 1974
15. Jenkins JR, Sells CJ, Brady D, et al: Effects of
developmental therapy on motor impaired children. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics 2(4): 19-28, 1982
16. Ottenbacher K, Short MA, Watson PJ: The
effects of a clinically applied program of vestibular stimulation on the neuromotor performance of children with severe developmental
disability. Physical & Occupational Therapy in
Pediatrics 1(3):1-11, 1981
17. Wolf JM: Results of Treatment in Cerebral
Palsy. Springfield, IL, Charles C Thomas, Publisher, 1969

Volume 66 / Number 11, November 1986

Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on March 12, 2015

1719

Concurrent and Predictive Validities of the Bayley

Motor Scale and the Peabody Developmental Motor
Scales
Robert J Palisano
PHYS THER. 1986; 66:1714-1719.

This article has been cited by 4 HighWire-hosted articles:

Cited by

http://ptjournal.apta.org/content/66/11/1714#otherarticles
http://ptjournal.apta.org/subscriptions/

Subscription
Information

Permissions and Reprints http://ptjournal.apta.org/site/misc/terms.xhtml

Information for Authors

http://ptjournal.apta.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml

Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on March 12, 2015