Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.


Reliability and Responsiveness of the Gross Motor Function Measure-88 in

Children With Cerebral Palsy

Article  in  Physical Therapy · November 2012

DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20110374 · Source: PubMed

60 1,651

2 authors:

Jooyeon Ko Minyoung Kim

Daegu health college CHA University


All content following this page was uploaded by Minyoung Kim on 26 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research Report

Reliability and Responsiveness of the

Gross Motor Function Measure-88 in
Children With Cerebral Palsy
Jooyeon Ko, MinYoung Kim
J. Ko, PT, PhD, Department of Reha-
bilitation Medicine, CHA Bundang
Background. The Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-88) is commonly used Medical Center, CHA University,
in the evaluation of gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy (CP). The Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, Repub-
relative reliability of GMFM-88 has been assessed in children with CP. However, little lic of Korea.
information is available regarding the absolute reliability or responsiveness of M. Kim, MD, PhD, Department of
GMFM-88. Rehabilitation Medicine, CHA
Bundang Medical Center, 59
Objective. The purpose of this study was to determine the absolute and relative Yatap-ro, Bungdang-gu, CHA Uni-
reliability and the responsiveness of the GMFM-88 in evaluating gross motor function versity, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-
do, 463-712, Republic of Korea.
in children with CP.
Address all correspondence to Dr
Kim at: kmin@cha.ac.kr.
Design. A clinical measurement design was used.
[Ko J, Kim M. Reliability and
responsiveness of the Gross Motor
Methods. Ten raters scored the GMFM-88 in 84 children (mean age⫽3.7 years, Function Measure-88 in children
SD⫽1.9, range⫽10 months to 9 years 9 months) from video records across all Gross with cerebral palsy. Phys Ther.
Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels to establish interrater reliability. 2013;93:393– 400.]
Two raters participated to assess intrarater reliability. Responsiveness was deter- © 2013 American Physical Therapy
mined from 3 additional assessments after the baseline assessment. The interrater and Association
intrarater intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) with 95% confidence intervals,
Published Ahead of Print:
standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest real difference (SRD), effect size (ES), November 8, 2012
and standardized response mean (SRM) were calculated. Accepted: November 2, 2012
Submitted: November 4, 2011
Results. The relative reliability of the GMFM was excellent (ICCs⫽.952–1.000).
The SEM and SRD for total score of the GMFM were acceptable (1.60 and 3.14,
respectively). Additionally, the ES and SRM of the dimension goal scores increased
gradually in the 3 follow-up assessments (GMFCS levels I and II: ES⫽0.5, 0.6, and 0.8
and SRM⫽1.3, 1.8, and 2.0; GMFCS levels III–V: ES⫽0.4, 0.7, and 0.9 and SRM⫽1.5,
1.7, and 2.0).

Limitations. Children over 10 years of age with CP were not included in this
study, so the results should not be generalized to all children with CP.

Conclusions. Both the reliability and the responsiveness of the GMFM-88 are
reasonable for measuring gross motor function in children with CP.

Post a Rapid Response to

this article at:

March 2013 Volume 93 Number 3 Physical Therapy f 393

Reliability and Responsiveness of the GMFM-88 in CP

erebral palsy (CP) is the most on an assessment tool. Reliability metric properties of the Trunk Con-
common disorder resulting in includes relative or absolute reliabil- trol Measurement Scale for children
physical disability in children. ity13 and interrater or intrarater reli- with CP, the GMFM-88 was used
The extent of motor disability varies ability. The interrater reliability of a instead of the GMFM-66 because the
by the degree of brain damage, rang- test is an estimate of how consistent shorter version provided only a total
ing from minor dysfunction to the the test is when used by different score and not scores of the different
most severely impaired cases.1 As raters; the intrarater reliability is an dimensions or the goal total score.
impairments in these children estimate of the consistency of the The goal total score is the mean
involve a variable range of functions, score assigned to a single set of score of selected dimensions on
the children need comprehensive responses on 2 or more occasions by which the physical therapist decides
rehabilitation therapy.2 Nonetheless, the same rater. Relative reliability to focus. Thus, the GMFM-88 needs
physical therapy is the most impor- examines the relationship between 2 to be further examined in terms of its
tant modality because children’s dis- or more measurements and the con- responsiveness in evaluating chil-
abilities primarily entail motor dys- sistency of an individual’s position dren with CP, including those at the
function. It is important to within the group. The intraclass cor- extremes of the range of functional
determine the effects of therapeutic relation coefficient (ICC) is used to ability and in terms of goal total
interventions on motor function quantify relative reliability.14 scores.
with reliable and valid tests. Several Although the ICC is the most widely
evaluation measures are available to used method for reliability studies, it The purpose of this study was to
assess gross motor development in provides limited information on mea- provide valuable information for
children with CP, such as the Pedi- surement error.15 A high ICC does clinical uses and research purposes
atric Evaluation of Disability Inven- not necessarily indicate a low possi- by fully estimating the relative and
tory3 and the Functional Indepen- bility of measurement error. Abso- absolute reliability and the respon-
dence Measure for Children.4 Among lute reliability investigates the extent siveness of the GMFM-88 for chil-
them, to date, the Gross Motor Func- of measurement error, and the stan- dren with CP.
tion Measure (GMFM)5 is the best- dard error of measurement (SEM)
known and most frequently used and smallest real difference (SRD) Method
instrument around the world. The have usually been used to quantify Sample
test requires a qualified therapist and it.16 To date, there has been no study We recruited 84 children with CP
a standardized environment. on absolute reliability for the GMFM- who had been admitted for 1 month
88. Thus, it is important to obtain of intensive rehabilitation therapy (2
The original version of the GMFM, SEM and SRD values for the sessions of physical therapy and 2
the GMFM-88, consists of 88 items GMFM-88 in children with CP. sessions of occupational therapy per
that have been categorized into 5 day, 5 days per week) to CHA Bun-
dimensions of gross motor function: Validity in such measures includes dang Medical Center, South Korea,
lying and rolling; sitting; crawling responsiveness, which is defined as between June and November 2010.
and kneeling; standing; and walking, the ability to differentiate clinically The mean age at the time of admis-
running, and jumping.6 Because it important differences.17 For the lon- sion (the baseline assessment) was
allows quantitative evaluation of gitudinal assessments, there should 3.7 years (mean age⫽3.7 years,
motor function, many studies have be appropriate power to detect sig- SD⫽1.9, range⫽10 months to 9
used the GMFM to assess the effec- nificant changes. The effect size years 9 months; Tab. 1). The inclu-
tiveness of interventions in children (ES)18 and the standardized response sion criteria were: (1) a confirmed
with CP.1,7–11 The psychometric mean (SRM)19 have commonly been diagnosis of CP from a pediatric reha-
properties of the GMFM-88 also used to measure responsiveness. bilitation medicine physician, (2) no
have been evaluated through many Although the more recently devel- surgical procedures within the pre-
studies since its development.5,6 oped GMFM-66 is now available, Rus- vious 6 months, and (3) no injection
To our knowledge, however, previ- sell et al,5 the developers of the of botulinum toxin type A within the
ous studies provided only relative GMFM, recommended the use of the previous 6 months. All caregivers of
reliability,1,5 and only a few studies GMFM-88 rather than the GMFM-66 the children were informed of the
have reported on the validity of the when evaluating changes in gross procedure and the purposes of this
GMFM.1,12 motor function at the 2 extremes of study, and all signed informed con-
impairment (ie, severely limited and sent forms.
Reliability refers to dependability, mildly involved cases). In a study by
consistency, and stability of scores Heyrman et al,20 evaluating psycho-

394 f Physical Therapy Volume 93 Number 3 March 2013

Reliability and Responsiveness of the GMFM-88 in CP

Table 1.
General Characteristics of the Samples for the Intrarater and Interrater Reliability Analysis and Responsiveness Analysisa

Intrarater and Interrater Reliability Analysis

Total <4 y >4 y Analysis
Variable (Nⴝ84) (nⴝ52) (nⴝ32) (nⴝ60)

Age, X (SD) 3.7 (1.9) 2.5 (0.9) 5.5 (1.5) 3.9 (2.0)


Male 54 (64.3) 32 (61.5) 22 (68.8) 38 (63.3)

Female 30 (35.7) 20 (38.5) 10 (31.2) 22 (36.7)

GMFCS level

I 14 (16.7) 9 (17.3) 5 (15.6) 7 (11.7)

II 9 (10.7) 6 (11.5) 3 (9.4) 9 (15.0)

III 22 (26.2) 19 (36.5) 3 (9.4) 17 (28.3)

IV 19 (22.6) 8 (15.4) 11 (34.4) 15 (25.0)

V 20 (23.8) 10 (19.2) 10 (31.3) 12 (20.0)

Values are frequencies (%), except for age. GMFCS⫽Gross Motor Function Classification System.

Functional ability was classified and all procedures were videotaped the GMFM raters. The raters had a
using the Gross Motor Function Clas- by 2 assistant therapists. The GMFM mean of 5 years and 3 months of
sification System (GMFCS), from baseline assessment of reliability was experience (range⫽8 months to 10
minimally involved (level I) to most performed at the time of admission. years 3 months) in pediatric prac-
severely involved (level V).21 The During the tests, the children were tice. All of the pediatric physical
enrolled participants were classified barefoot and used no assistive therapists attended a 30-hour GMFM
as GMFCS levels I (n⫽14), II (n⫽9), devices. It took 40 to 60 minutes to workshop aimed at training the ther-
III (n⫽22), IV (n⫽19), and V (n⫽20) record each child’s body move- apists to administer the instrument.
at the baseline assessment (Tab. 1). ments. To determine interrater reli- After the workshop, the 10 raters
All participants were divided into 2 ability, 10 pediatric physical thera- independently viewed and scored
age subgroups: 52 were younger pists (raters A through J) served as the 84 GMFM records without dis-
than 4 years of age (mean age⫽2.5
years, SD⫽0.9; 32 boys and 20 girls),
and 32 were 4 years of age or older
(mean age⫽5.5 years, SD⫽1.5; The Bottom Line
22 boys and 10 girls). The results of
a study by Rosenbaum et al22 indi- What do we already know about this topic?
cated most rapid changes in GMFM
results occur during the first 4 years There is little information about the absolute reliability and responsive-
of life. ness of the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-88).

Instrument What new information does this study offer?

A translated Korean version of the The GMFM-88 shows satisfactory reliability for both absolute and relative
GMFM-88 was used. indexes. In addition, the GMFM-88 is responsive to functional improve-
ment when administered to a child with cerebral palsy in a clinical setting.
Tests for all items of the GMFM-88 If you’re a caregiver, what might these findings mean
were administered in a pediatric for you?
physical therapy room that was com-
fortable and familiar to the children. The GMFM-88 is a good measure to better understand the gross motor
The tests were conducted in the ability and functional change of children with cerebral palsy.
order given in the GMFM manual,

March 2013 Volume 93 Number 3 Physical Therapy f 395

Reliability and Responsiveness of the GMFM-88 in CP

Table 2.
Scores on the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-88) and Values of Interrater Reliability Tests Assessed by 10 Raters (N⫽84)a

Dimension X (SD) Median ICC (2,1) 95% CI SEM SRD

Lying and rolling 73.3 (29.0) 86.0 .975 .966–.982 4.59 8.98

Sitting 53.4 (34.4) 55.0 .986 .982–.990 4.07 7.98

Crawling and kneeling 41.5 (38.4) 39.0 .989 .985–.992 4.03 7.90

Standing 23.1 (32.4) 3.0 .987 .982–.991 3.69 7.23

Walking, running, and jumping 16.3 (27.4) 0.0 .994 .992–.996 2.12 4.16

Total 41.5 (29.2) 37.0 .997 .996–.998 1.60 3.14

ICC (2,1)⫽intraclass correlation coefficient for interrater reliability, 95% CI⫽95% confidence interval, SEM⫽standard error of measurement, SRD⫽smallest
real difference.

cussing the scores with one another. Data Analysis were calculated using all ratings
To determine intrarater reliability, Descriptive statistics for each dimen- recorded during the 10-rater interra-
2 of the 10 raters rescored the sion and total percentage scores ter trial, and the intrarater SEM and
same 84 video recordings 1 month were used. For relative reliability, SRD were calculated from repeated
after the first assessment. The assess- ICC (2,1) and ICC (1,1) with 95% scoring by raters A and J. Addition-
ment interval was used to mini- confidence intervals were used to ally, the interrater and intrarater reli-
mize any influence of memory.23 evaluate the interrater and intrarater ability of GMFM-88 were assessed for
One of the 2 raters, rater A (the reliability of each GMFM dimensions each of the different age groups
most experienced rater) had more and of the total scores. According to and GMFCS levels (⬍4 years and ⱖ4
than 10 years of experience in the Polit and Hungler,25 a reliability coef- years of age; GMFCS levels I and II
pediatric field; the other rater, rater J ficient of at least .70 may be suffi- and levels III–V).
(newly trained), had less than 1 year cient for group comparisons. How-
of experience. To evaluate the ever, when a measure is to be used The responsiveness was determined
responsiveness of the GMFM-88 in for clinical decision making regard- by use of the ES and the SRM for
the same children, 3 additional ing an individual patient, a more each dimension, total score, and goal
follow-up assessments were con- stringent criterion is recommended. total score of the GMFM-88. The goal
ducted at 1, 3, and 6 months after the In such cases, an ICC of .90 for a total dimensions in the GMFM-88 were
baseline assessment by the therapists score is generally accepted as the individually selected by the raters.
who participated in the reliability minimum.26 To identify the goal areas, the child’s
study, and the same therapist rated current functional status (ie, infor-
each child at the 3 time periods in Absolute reliability was determined mation from his or her GMFM assess-
which no video recording was used. by calculating both the SEM and the ment) and a number of other factors,
SRD. The SEM is the standard devia- including the child’s age and his or
Among the 84 children, data from tion of measurement errors,27 and her home and school environment,
60 children (mean age⫽3.9 years, the SRD is the score that might be were considered.5 For example, if a
SD⫽2.0, range⫽1 year 1 month to 9 accepted as a smallest extent of real child was similar to a 6-year-old in
years 5 months; Tab. 1) who contin- change.28 The calculation formula functioning at GMFCS level IV and
ued rehabilitation therapy after dis- for the parameters and their signifi- attended a kindergarten, the thera-
charge were available for analysis of cance was: SEM⫽SD 公1⫺r.29 We pist might choose sitting and crawl-
responsiveness. used the ICC to determine the value ing and kneeling as goal areas. Thus,
of r in this study. The SRD value of the mean goal total score would be
In accordance with the original ver- less than 1.96 ⫻ SEM is required in the average of percentage scores for
sion of GMFM-88, the raters scored order to include 95% of the ratings those 2 dimensions. Each goal total
all 88 items for each assessment. The when applied to interrater reliabil- score was calculated as a mean score
raw score of each dimension was ity.14 In the case of intrarater reliabil- of the selected dimensions. The ES
converted into a percentage score.24 ity, SRD should be less than 公2 ⫻ refers to the mean change between
The values obtained from the pro- 1.96 ⫻ SEM⫽2.77 ⫻ SEM for 95% of the baseline and the later score
cess described above were used for the pairs of ratings to have mean- divided by the standard deviation of
data analysis. ing.14 The interrater SEM and SRD the baseline. The SRM was calcu-

396 f Physical Therapy Volume 93 Number 3 March 2013

Reliability and Responsiveness of the GMFM-88 in CP

Table 3.
Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-88) Total Score for Different Age and Functional
Subgroups of Children With Cerebral Palsy (N⫽84)a
Interrater (Raters A–J) Intrarater (Rater A)b

Subgroup n X (SD) ICC (2,1) SEM SRD ICC (1,1) SEM SRD


⬍4 y 52 39.9 (28.1) .997 1.54 3.02 1.000 0.00

ⱖ4 y 32 44.1 (30.7) .987 3.50 6.86 1.000 0.00


I 14 79.9 (23.7) .952 5.19 10.2 1.000 0.00

II 9 64.5 (20.6) .994 1.60 3.13 1.000 0.00

III 22 46.3 (17.1) .990 1.71 3.35 .998 0.76 2.11

IV 19 30.6 (13.7) .983 1.79 3.51 .999 0.43 1.19

V 20 9.5 (7.8) .972 1.31 2.57 1.000 0.00

GMFCS⫽Gross Motor Function Classification System, ICC (2,1)⫽intraclass correlation coefficient for interrater reliability, ICC (1,1)⫽intraclass correlation
coefficient for intrarater reliability, SE⫽standard error of measurement, SRD⫽smallest real difference.
Rater A was the most experienced therapist.

Table 4.
Effect Size (ES) and Standardized Response Mean (SRM) for the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-88) According to the
GMFCSa Levels I and IIb,c and III to Vd (n⫽60)
Baseline–1 Month Baseline–3 Months Baseline–6 Months

Mean Change Mean Change Mean Change


GMFCS I–II (n⫽16)

Lying and rolling 1.0 (2.1) 0.4 0.5 1.3 (2.8) 0.5 0.5 1.6 (2.8) 0.6 0.6

Sitting 2.4 (3.2) 0.4 0.8 3.3 (3.9) 0.6 0.8 3.9 (3.9) 0.7 1.0

Crawling and kneeling 4.0 (4.6) 0.4 0.9 6.2 (5.7) 0.6 1.1 6.5 (6.1) 0.6 1.1

Standing 7.1 (6.0) 0.3 1.2 10.3 (8.0) 0.4 1.3 12.7 (11.4) 0.5 1.1

Walking, running, and 6.3 (6.9) 0.2 1.0 7.6 (7.4) 0.3 1.0 10.8 (10.3) 0.4 1.0

Goal total 7.3 (5.6) 0.5 1.3 9.2 (5.0) 0.6 1.8 11.8 (6.0) 0.8 2.0

Total 4.1 (3.2) 0.3 1.3 5.7 (3.6) 0.5 1.6 7.1 (4.6) 0.6 1.6

GMFCS III–V (n⫽44)

Lying and rolling 6.2 (5.9) 0.3 1.1 9.3 (8.3) 0.4 1.1 12.1 (9.3) 0.5 1.3

Sitting 6.9 (7.0) 0.3 1.0 11.8 (8.9) 0.4 1.3 16.4 (12.5) 0.6 1.3

Crawling and kneeling 4.0 (5.2) 0.1 0.8 10.2 (11.9) 0.4 0.9 12.6 (14.1) 0.4 0.9

Standing 4.8 (8.3) 0.5 0.6 6.8 (11.6) 0.7 0.6 7.1 (10.9) 0.7 0.7

Walking, running, and 0.7 (1.7) 0.1 0.4 1.7 (3.0) 0.3 0.6 2.1 (3.7) 0.4 0.6

Goal total 7.4 (5.1) 0.4 1.5 12.7 (7.4) 0.7 1.7 16.4 (8.4) 0.9 2.0

Total 4.5 (3.2) 0.3 1.4 8.3 (6.3) 0.5 1.3 10.1 (6.8) 0.6 1.5
GMFCS⫽Gross Motor Function Classification System.
One child was not tested at 3 and 6 months after admission due to health problems of the child.
One child was not tested at 6 months after admission due to parental reasons.
One child was not tested at 6 months after admission due to health problems of the child.

March 2013 Volume 93 Number 3 Physical Therapy f 397

Reliability and Responsiveness of the GMFM-88 in CP

lated by dividing the mean change Discussion age and functional level by classify-
by the standard deviation of the Our results, based on ICC, SEM, SRD, ing participants into subgroups. All
changes. There is no absolute stan- ES, and SRM indexes, showed satis- results from the subgroups demon-
dard for interpreting ES and SRM val- factory levels of responsiveness and strated high ICC values (Tab. 3).
ues, so we used the interpretation of of relative and absolute reliability for However, it became clear that the
Cohen.30 According to those criteria, the GMFM-88 for children with CP, use of ICC alone would be insuffi-
an ES greater than 0.8 is large, 0.5 to across all GMFCS functional levels. cient for a reliability analysis because
0.8 is moderate, and 0.2 to 0.5 is the ICC alone does not enable mea-
small. It could be interpreted that In terms of relative reliability, the suring actual differences.14,16
the larger ES becomes, the greater ICCs for interrater and intrarater reli-
the change. To analyze responsive- ability for the 5 dimensions and total The SEM is an estimate of error asso-
ness, we classified participants by scores were ⬎.97 and ⬎.94, respec- ciated with measurement. Currently,
age and functional impairment. tively. In a previous study by Russell there is no criterion for the interpre-
et al,5 the original GMFM developers, tation of SEM levels for the GMFM-
All statistical analyses were per- the values of interrater ICCs ranged 88. Liaw et al32 suggested that SEM
formed using SPSS version 19.0 soft- from .87 to .99, and those of intra- scores less than 10% of the total
ware (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois). rater ICCs ranged from .92 to .99 for mean score were acceptable. Apply-
all dimensions and total scores. In ing this criterion to our results for
Results the present study, the years of expe- interrater reliability, the SEMs of the
Relative and absolute reliability for rience of the pediatric therapists lying and rolling, sitting, and crawl-
intrarater reliability were satisfactory ranged from less than 1 year to ing and kneeling dimensions were
(ICC [1,1]⫽.994 –1.000, SEM⫽0.00 – more than 10 years. Despite 30 acceptable; however, the SEM values
2.23, and SRD⫽2.28 – 6.18, respec- hours of workshop training, the for standing and for walking, run-
tively). Indexes of relative interrater results for the least experienced ning, and jumping were slightly
reliability, ICC (2,1) for each dimen- therapist were poorer than those for higher than 10% of the mean score
sion, and total score on the the more experienced therapists. (3.69 ⬎10% of 23.1 and 2.12 ⬎10%
GMFM-88 ranged from .975 to .997 Thus, an adequate amount of train- of 16.3, respectively). The SEMs of
(Tab. 2). The interrater and intrarater ing is required before conducting the total gross motor score for
ICCs when children were classified GMFM-88 assessments, and retrain- GMFCS levels III and IV for the intra-
by the 2 age subgroups and 5 GMFCS ing may be necessary to minimize rater reliability were reasonable
levels were ⬎.952 for all examina- differences among therapists. (0.76 and 0.43, respectively), and for
tions (Tab. 3). All of the ICC values the other levels, the SEM values were
were excellent. Nordmark et al31 examined the inter- zero. The SRD, derived from the
rater and intrarater reliability of the SEM, indicates whether the interven-
For absolute reliability, intrarater GMFM-88 for the dimensions of lying tion effect exceeds the measurement
SEMs and SRDs ranged from 0.00 to and rolling, sitting, and crawling and error and enables clinical judgment
2.23 and from 2.28 to 6.18, respec- kneeling by repeated administration about the occurrence of real change
tively. The indexes of interrater reli- using a video recording of 3 children as a result of a specific interven-
ability SEM and SRD were in the with CP by 15 physical therapists tions.28 To our knowledge, the SRD
ranges of 1.60 to 4.59 and 3.14 to using the GMFM manual without has not been documented previously
8.98, respectively, for the 5 dimen- previous experience or training in for the GMFM-88.
sions and total scores (Tab. 2). The using the measure. The ICC (2,1)
SEM and SRD values according to age was .77 and .88 at the first and sec- In the present study, we calculated
and GMFCS level subgroups are ond assessments, respectively, and the SRD for the GMFM-88 in each
shown in Table 3. For responsive- the ICC (1,1) was .68 at the second dimension and the total score, pro-
ness, the ES and the SRM of each assessment. When compared with viding a threshold for interpreting
dimension, goal total, and total score previous studies, our results were changes in GMFM-88 scores over
of the GMFM-88 for GMFCS levels I similar or showed even higher reli- time. For example, the total gross
and II and levels III to V were found ability (Tabs. 1 and 2). Because motor ability improvement of less
to be responsive, showing moderate demographic data, including age and than 3.14 could be due to natural
to large ES and SRM value at 6 severity of motor involvement, variability in measurement error,
months after the baseline assessment might show different clinical mani- even if no real change was obtained
(Tab. 4). festations, we investigated interrater through the therapy. With this
and intrarater reliability according to threshold in mind, the results of this

398 f Physical Therapy Volume 93 Number 3 March 2013

Reliability and Responsiveness of the GMFM-88 in CP

study indicated slight improvement but included only GMFCS levels I institutional liaisons, and consultation
at 1 month after the intervention, and II.12 (including review of rapid proof before
showing increases of 4.1 points in
GMFCS levels I and II and 4.5 points In the present study, the values of The authors express their gratitude to the
in GMFCS levels III to V. However, SRM were higher than those of ES children and families who participated in the
study. Special thanks go to the pediatric
the increments were certainly across all scores on the GMFM-88,
physical therapists in the Department of
greater than the SRM at 3 months indicating that the standard devia- Rehabilitation Medicine, CHA Bundang
and 6 months after the intervention tion of the changes in score was Medical Center, CHA University, who admin-
in both GMFCS groups (Tab. 4). The more homogenous than that of the istered the assessments for the study.
interrater SRD was large for GMFCS baseline scores. The SRM seems to Approval for this study was granted by the
level I (Tab. 3). Children at GMFCS be more representative than the ES Institutional Review Board of CHA Bundang
level I have good function in walk- when applied to a group with vary- Medical Center, CHA University.
ing, stair walking, and jumping, ing functional ability at baseline. DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20110374
which are dynamic activities. Because SRM uses the between-
Although the raters had pretest train- subject variability of the individual
ing, such dynamic activities might be change scores over time as a denom- References
1 Lundkvist Josenby A, Jarnlo GB, Gummes-
difficult for therapists with less expe- inator, it provides more appropriate son C, Nordmark E. Longitudinal construct
rience to measure. Again, the ten- standardization than ES, which uses validity of the GMFM-88 total score and
goal total score and the GMFM-66 score in
dency of lowered reliability in more between-subject variability of the a 5-year follow-up study. Phys Ther. 2009;
difficult items suggests that training baseline score instead. A higher SRM 89:342–350.
is needed prior to performing the indicates better responsiveness. 2 Aisen ML, Kerkovich D, Mast J, et al. Cere-
bral palsy: clinical care and neurological
GMFM. rehabilitation. Lancet Neurol. 2011;10:
In summary, we investigated the 844 – 852.
It is important that a function- reliability and responsiveness of 3 Duncan B, Shen K, Zou LP, et al. Evaluat-
ing intense rehabilitative therapies with
measuring tool have responsiveness the GMFM-88 for a relatively large and without acupuncture for children
(ie, the ability to detect changes over sample of children with CP. The with cerebral palsy: a randomized con-
trolled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;
time). Some researchers have stud- results indicated reliability and 93:808 – 815.
ied the responsiveness of the responsiveness. 4 Davis MF. Measuring impairment and func-
GMFM-88 in monitoring the effec- tional limitations in children with cerebral
palsy. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33:2416 –
tiveness of interventions.1,12 Nord- Limitations 2424.
mark et al31 reported the need to Because the present study was con- 5 Russell DJ, Rosenbaum PL, Avery LM, Lane
classify individuals according to age ducted at 1 center and the age range M. Gross Motor Function Measure
(GMFM-66 and GMFM-88) User’s Man-
and severity of functional impair- of the patient population was lim- ual. London, United Kingdom: Mac Keith
ment to assess responsiveness in ited, the results should not be gener- Press; 2002.
children with CP. In the present alized to all children with CP. Thus, a 6 Russell DJ, Rosenbaum PL, Cadman DT,
et al. The Gross Motor Function Measure:
study, we also classified the children multicenter study with a broader a means to evaluate the effects of physical
between the ages of 13 months to range of ages of the study sample therapy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1989;31:
9 years 5 months into 2 subgroups should be conducted.
7 Rosenbaum P, Paneth N, Leviton A, et al. A
according to their severity as less report: the definition and classification of
impaired (GMFCS levels I and II) and Conclusion cerebral palsy April 2006. Dev Med Child
Neurol Suppl. 2007;109:8 –14.
more severely impaired (GMFCS lev- Each dimension and the total score
8 Zarrinkalam R, Russo RN, Gibson CS, et al.
els III–V) to analyze responsiveness of the GMFM-88 showed acceptable CP or not CP? A review of diagnosis in a
of the GMFM-88, respectively. The levels of relative reliability and abso- cerebral palsy register. Pediatr Neurol.
results showed large responsiveness lute reliability. Also, responsiveness
9 Harbourne RT, Willett S, Kyvelidou A,
of the GMFM-88 goal total score as of the goal total score of the et al. A comparison of interventions for
reflected in changes after 6 months, GMFM-88 was high in children with children with cerebral palsy to improve
sitting postural control: a clinical trial.
regardless of functional severity CP regardless of their functional Phys Ther. 2010;90:1881–1898.
(GMFCS levels I and II versus levels severity. 10 Unlu E, Cevikol A, Bal B, et al. Multilevel
III–V: ES⫽0.8, 0.9 and SRM⫽2.0, 2.0, botulinum toxin type a as a treatment for
spasticity in children with cerebral palsy: a
respectively), according to Cohen’s retrospective study. Clinics (Sao Paulo).
Both authors provided concept/idea/re-
criteria.30 This finding is similar to 2010;65:613– 619.
search design, writing, data collection, proj-
that in a previous study, which dem- ect management, and facilities/equipment. 11 Sterba JA. Adaptive downhill skiing in chil-
dren with cerebral palsy: effect on gross
onstrated responsiveness of GMFM, Dr Ko provided data analysis and clerical motor function. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2006;
support. Dr Kim provided study participants, 18:289 –296.

March 2013 Volume 93 Number 3 Physical Therapy f 399

Reliability and Responsiveness of the GMFM-88 in CP

12 Vos-Vromans DC, Ketelaar M, Gorter JW. 20 Heyrman L, Molenaers G, Desloovere K, 26 Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. 2nd
Responsiveness of evaluative measures for et al. A clinical tool to measure trunk ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
children with cerebral palsy: the Gross control in children with cerebral palsy: 27 McKenna L, Cunningham J, Straker L.
Motor Function Measure and the Pediatric the Trunk Control Measurement Scale. Inter-tester reliability of scapular position
Evaluation of Disability Inventory. Disabil Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32:2624 –2635. in junior elite swimmer. Phys Ther Sport.
Rehabil. 2005;27:1245–1252. 21 Palisano RJ, Rosenbaum PL, Walter SD, 2004;5:146 –155.
13 Lu YM, Lin JH, Hsiao SF, et al. The relative et al. Development and reliability of a sys- 28 Beckerman H, Roebroeck ME, Lankhorst
and absolute reliability of leg muscle tem to classify gross motor function in GJ, et al. Smallest real difference, a link
strength testing by a handheld dynamom- children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med between reproducibility and responsive-
eter. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25:1065– Child Neurol. 1997;39:214 –223. ness. Qual Life Res. 2001;10:571–578.
1071. 22 Rosenbaum PL, Walter SD, Hanna SE, 29 Damstra J, Huddleston Slater JJ, Fourie Z,
14 Bland JM, Altman DG. Measurement error et al. Prognosis for gross motor function Ren Y. Reliability and the smallest detect-
and correlation coefficients. BMJ. 1996; in cerebral palsy: creation of motor able differences of lateral cephalometric
313:41– 42. development curves. JAMA. 2002:288; measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
15 Harris KD, Heer DM, Roy TC, et al. Reli- Orthop. 2010;138:546.e1–546.e8.
ability of a measurement of neck flexor 23 Jeng SF, Yau KI, Chen LC, Hsiao SF. 30 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for
muscle endurance. Phys Ther. 2005;85: Alberta Infant Motor Scale: reliability and the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale,
1349 –1355. validity when used on preterm infants in NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
Taiwan. Phys Ther. 2000;80:168 –178.
16 Flansbjer UB, Holmbäck AM, Downham D, 31 Nordmark E, Hägglund G, Jarnlo GB. Reli-
Lexell J. What change in isokinetic knee 24 Ketelaar M, Verneer A, Helders P. Func- ability of the Gross Motor Function Mea-
muscle strength can be detected in men tional motor abilities of children with cere- sure in cerebral palsy. Scand J Rehabil
and women with hemiparesis after stroke? bral palsy: a systemic literature review of Med. 1997;29:25–28.
Clin Rehabil. 2005;19:514 –522. assessment measures. Clin Rehabil. 1998;
12:369 –380. 32 Liaw LJ, Hsieh CL, Lo SK, et al. The relative
17 Giraudeau B, Ravaud P, Chastang C. and absolute reliability of two balance per-
Importance of reproducibility in respon- 25 Polit DF, Hungler BP. Essential of Nursing formance measures in chronic stroke
siveness issues. Biometrical J. 1998;40: Research: Methods, Appraisal, and Utili- patients. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30:
685–701. zation. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Wil- 656 – 661.
liams & Wilkins; 1989.
18 Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect
size for interpreting changes in health sta-
tus. Med Care. 1989;27:S178 –S189.
19 Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Compar-
ison of five health status instruments for
orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990;
28:632– 642.

400 f Physical Therapy Volume 93 Number 3 March 2013

View publication stats

Centres d'intérêt liés