Abstract
Background Locomotor function is often impaired in children diagnosed with cerebral palsy (CP). Improving locomotor function is a common goal of treatment. The current gold standard for assessing locomotor function in CP is the gross motor function measure (GMFM-66). The GMFM-66 requires an in-person assessment by a trained clinician. It would be useful to have a measure of function that is like the GMFM-66 but can be assessed through patient report.
Methods We queried the clinical databases of two motion analysis centers (Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare and Shriners Hospital – Salt Lake City) for individuals with a diagnosis of cerebral palsy (CP) who were 18 years old or younger and had undergone instrumented clinical gait analysis that included the functional assessment questionnaire (FAQ). We computed the transformed FAQ (FAQt) as the weighted sum of the skills an individual was able to perform, where the weighting was the difficulty of the skills. We assessed concurrent and external validity of the FAQt by comparing it to the GMFM-66.
Results The FAQt exhibited strong concurrent and external validity. Linear regression showed that the GMFM-66 explained 54% of the variance in FAQt, and the linear fit was independent of center. The FAQt evolved with age in a manner similar to the GMFM-66, with higher functioning individuals, as measured by gross motor function classification system level, achieving higher levels of function at a higher rate and an earlier age compared to their lower functioning peers. The findings with respect to GMFM-66 did not depend on the center at which the data was acquired.
Conclusions The FAQt demonstrates strong concurrent and external validity, making it a useful measure of locomotor function.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
There was no external funding for this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Approval for this study was granted by the University of Minnesota (STUDY00012420) and Western (STUDY1249365) institutional review boards.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the fact that they contain protected health information, but may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
