中美婴儿运动表现测试常模差异分析

目的 比较中美婴儿运动表现测试(TIMP)常模,明确本地化研究和修正的重要性,为指导TIMP在国内的推广提供依据。方法 经TIMP手册正反译,评估人员培训、信度考核后,分别在华东、华北、华南、华中、西南、西北、东北区域11家医疗机构采样,建立中国TIMP常模,并就样本情况、得分情况及亚组分类与美国常模进行对比。结果 中国TIMP常模共13个周龄组,样本总数为1 035例,其中男性占56％,女性占44％,汉族占比95％,少数民族5％,早产儿和足月儿分别占比 31％、69％;美国常模共12个周龄组,样本总数为990例,其中男性占52%,女性48%,白种人占58%,黑种人25%,高危、中危、低危婴儿分别占比35％、30％、35％。中国TIMP常模各周龄组得分均值低于同周龄组的美国常模(P<0.01);中国常模第10、50、90百分位数曲线低于美国常模。中国常模足月儿与早产儿亚组对比,大多数周龄组得分无显著差异;美国常模中高危儿亚组得分显著低于低危组(P<0.001)。结论 基于两国人口特征和儿童保健发展现状的不同,中美TIMP常模取样人群存在差异。中国常模各周龄组的得分均值低于美国常模同周龄组婴儿,故我国的临床工作中不可直接使用美国常模作为参考标准。

Differences of the Test of Infant Motor Performance between Chinese and American norms

Objective To compare Chinese and American norms for the Test of Infant Motor Performance(TIMP),to understand the difference and clarify the importance of localization studies and revision,so as to provide evidence for guiding the promotion of TIMP in China.Methods After the manual of TIMP having been finished by using forward and backward translation and appraisers having been trained,Chinese norms for TIMP were established by sampling in 11 medical institutions in East China,North China,South China,Central China,Southwest,Northwest and Northeast China.Then the Chinese norms were compared with American norms through the sample,score,and subgroup classification.Results There were 13week-age groups in Chinese norms for TIMP,and the total number of samples is 1035,including 56%males and 44%females,95%Han nationality and 5%ethnic minorities,of which 31%were premature infants and 69%were full-term infants.There were 12week-age groups in American norms for TIMP with a total of 990samples,including 52%males and 48%females,58%whites and 25%blacks,of which high risk,medium risk,and low-risk infants accounted for 35%,30%and 35%,respectively.The average score of each age group of Chinese norms for TIMP was lower than that of the same age group of American norms(P<0.001),and the 10th,50th and 90th percentile curves of Chinese norms were lower than those of American norms.There were no significant differences in the scores of most weekage groups between full-term and premature subgroups in Chinese norms,but the score of the high-risk infants subgroup of American norms was significantly lower than those of the low-risk subgroup(P<0.001).Conclusions Based on the differences in the demographic characteristics and the development of child health in two countries,the sample population between Chinese and American norms for TIMP is different.The average scores in all week-age groups of Chinese norms are lower than those of the same week-age group of American norms,so American norms could not be directly used as the reference standard in Chinese clinical work.