Harris Infant Neuromotor Test: comparison of US and Canadian normative data and examination of concurrent validity with the Ages and Stages Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT) was developed as a screening tool for potential motor and cognitive developmental disorders in infants. Scoring on the HINT has been shown to be reliable, and several studies have supported the validity of the HINT. Normative values for the tool have been developed using Canadian infants. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were (1) to further evaluate the validity of the HINT by comparing data obtained on US infants who were developing typically with data previously acquired on Canadian infants and (2) to determine the concurrent validity of the HINT with the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ). Secondary analyses of HINT scores for US white and nonwhite infants and for US infants who had parents with lower levels of education and US infants who had parents with higher levels of education (as a proxy for socioeconomic status [SES]) were conducted. DESIGN: Cross-sectional exploratory and quasi-experimental comparative research designs were used to evaluate the validity of the HINT. METHODS: Sixty-seven infants from the United States who were developing typically and who were aged 2.5 to 12.5 months were recruited via convenience sampling. Sixty-four of these infants were compared with Canadian infants matched for age, sex, ethnicity or race, and parental education. The HINT was administered by raters who had been trained to attain acceptable levels of interrater reliability, and parents completed the ASQ. The HINT scores for US white versus nonwhite infants (n=46) and infants who had parents with lower SES versus a higher SES (n=52) were compared. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between HINT total scores for US and Canadian infants or for US racial or ethnic groups and SES groups. There were high correlations (r=-.82 to -.84) between HINT and ASQ scores. LIMITATIONS: The study used a small US sample with limited geographical diversity. Small sample numbers also did not allow for comparisons of specific racial or ethnic groups. The SES groups were created primarily using parental education as a proxy for SES. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that HINT screening in the United States is supported on the basis of Canadian norms and the validity of the HINT in screening for motor and cognitive delays. Although there is preliminary support for the HINT as an appropriate screening tool for US infants who are nonwhite or who have parents with a lower SES, more research is warranted.

Known-groups analysis of the harris infant neuromotor test.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT) is a screening tool designed to identify neuromotor or cognitive/behavioral concerns in infants who are healthy or at high risk between the ages of 3 and 12 months. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the HINT could distinguish between infants at high risk and infants at low risk for neuromotor delays. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Following HINT administration by trained health care professionals, scores were compared for 54 high-risk infants and 412 low-risk infants with a t test. RESULTS: Mean HINT scores for infants at low risk were lower than mean scores for infants at high risk, as would be expected in that higher scores indicate higher risk. Significant differences were found at 4, 5, 7, and 8 months. At 6 months, there were no significant differences. There were not enough high-risk infants in other subgroups for reliable comparison. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The HINT appears to discriminate effectively between infants who are at low risk and infants who are at high risk for neuromotor delays, supporting the use of the HINT as a screening tool for infants in the first year of life.

Stability of the Bayley II Scales of Infant Development in a sample of low-risk and high-risk infants.

The aim of this study was to examine the stability of the second edition of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley II) by correlating Bayley II scores during the first year of life with Bayley II scores at approximately 18 months of age. Bayley II Mental and Motor Scales were administered to 119 infants (69 males, 50 females) during their first year of life; mean age for low-risk group 7 months (SD 3.01) and mean age for high-risk group 7.8 months (SD 2.46). A second set of Bayley II scores was collected on 104 of the infants at 17 to 22 months of age; mean age for low-risk group 18.5 months (SD 1.07) and mean age for high-risk group 18.9 months (SD 1.11). Mean time interval between the two assessments was 11.5 months for the low-risk group and 11.15 months for the high-risk group. Stability of the scores over time was assessed. Correlations for the Bayley II Mental Developmental Index and Psychomotor Developmental Index between administrations during the first and second years of life were r=0.49 (p<0.001) and r=0.48 (p<0.001) respectively. We conclude that approximately 23 to 24% of the variance in the infants' later Bayley II scores could be explained by the earlier scores. This is one of only two studies to examine the stability of Bayley II over time. Replication studies are needed to evaluate the consistency of these findings across other samples of infants.