To address the need for a standardized system to classify the gross motor function of children with cerebral palsy, the authors developed a five-level classification system analogous to the stag- ing and grading systems used in medicine. Nominal group process and Delphi survey consensus methods were used to examine content validity and revise the classification system until consensus among 48 experts (physical therapists, occupa- tional therapists, and developmental pediatricians with expertise in cerebral palsy) was achieved. Interrater reliability (kappa) was 0.55 for children less than 2 years of age and 0.75 for chil- dren 2 to 12 years of age. The classification system has applica- tion for clinical practice, research, teaching, and administration. ty of families classifying their child's movement ability using the GMFCS. The original intention of the developers was that classi- fication would be made by a health professional in consultation with the child's family. However, in postal surveys we have found that classifications made by families, provided with instructions but otherwise unfamiliar with the system, are high- ly consistent with those made independently by health profes- sionals. 3,4 In those papers, we suggest that information from the family is essential for making any classification using the GMFCS, as their knowledge of a child's performance across a range of environments such as home, school, and community settings will typically be far greater that a health professional can observe in clinic. Work has recently been completed to revise the descriptions of children between 6 and 12 years old, mainly to clarify the effect of different environments, and also the addition of an older age band for adolescents between 12 and 18 years old. Colleagues in Australia have produced helpful illustrations for children and adolescents in each GMFCS level that provide a visual reference when first learning about the system. The suc- cess of the GMFCS has prompted the development of an analo- gous system for classifying manual ability in children with CP, 5 and work is in progress to develop a similar system for classify- ing communication function. Each system is adding another part of the jigsaw that can help us understand children's life experiences and how best to improve their participation. Palisano et al. are to be commended for their work on the GMFCS and the 1997 paper is fittingly celebrated as part of the 50th anniversary of the journal.

This study explored the relationships between the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), limb distribution, and type of motor impairment. Data used were collected in the Ontario Motor Growth study, a longitudinal cohort study with a population-based sample of children with cerebral palsy (CP) in Canada (n=657; age 1 to 13 years at study onset). The majority (87.8%) of children with hemiplegia were classified as level I. Children with a bilateral syndrome were represented in all GMFCS levels, with most in levels III, IV, and V. Classifications by GMFCS and 'limb distribution' or by GMFCS and 'type of motor impairment' were statistically significantly associated (Pearson's chi2 p<0.001), though the correlation for limb distribution (two categories) by GMFCS was low (tau-b=0.43). An analysis of function (GMFCS) by impairment (limb distribution) indicates that the latter clinical characteristic does not add prognostic value over GMFCS. Although classification of CP by impairment level is useful for clinical and epidemiological purposes, the value of these subgroups as an indicator of mobility is limited in comparison with the classification of severity with the GMFCS.

The aim of this study was to determine the reliability of family reports for the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), a condition-specific discriminative measure of severity of movement disability for children with cerebral palsy (CP). We conducted a cross-sectional survey using a short questionnaire with families of children with CP for whom we already had ratings of GMFCS level made by a health professional. We assessed the potentially confounding effect of whether the family had discussed the GMFCS with a professional. Two hundred and one questionnaires were posted to families of which 97 (48%) were completed and returned. Mean age of the children (53 males, 40 females) was 9 years 5 months (SD 1 year 1 month), range 6 to 11 years. Children of the families who responded encompassed the spectrum of types and distribution of impairment and severity of movement disability. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of agreement between professionals and families who had discussed their child's GMFCS level with a health professional (n=35) was 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to 0.98); for those who had not (n=52) the ICC was 0.92 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.93); and for the whole sample (n=93) the ICC was 0.94 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.96). Stability between ratings made by health professionals for children when they were in the 4 to 6 year age band of the GMFCS and ratings made by families for the same children when they were in the 6 to 12 year age band (n=35) was ICC=0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97). The excellent agreement demonstrated in this study suggests that family reports of the GMFCS made by using our questionnaire provide a reliable method for measuring gross motor function in children between 6 and 12 years old. This might be more efficient for observational studies of large populations, experimental research, or community health administration than direct observation, particularly when professional assessment is not feasible.

In this study parents' systematic accounts of the health status of 408 school-aged children with cerebral palsy (CP) are reported (221 males, 187 females; mean age 8 years 5 months, SD 1 year 11 months; range 5 to 13 years), as are relations between severity of functional motor impairment and eight functional health status domains. Data were collected as part of a longitudinal study of the motor development of a population-based, stratified, random sample of children with CP from across Ontario, Canada. The Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) was used to classify severity of CP and functional health status was described with the eight-level Health Utilities Index-Mark 3. Rates of functional limitations in Mobility, Dexterity, Speech, and Vision were statistically significantly associated with GMFCS levels (all p<0.01), with correlation values (tau-b) of 0.82, 0.58, 0.46, and 0.36, respectively. Functional limitations in hearing (tau-b=0.16; p=0.04) and cognition (tau-b=0.27; p<0.01) were both statistically significantly associated with GMFCS levels, though correlations were low. Neither emotion (tau-b=0.03; p=0.24) nor pain (tau-b=0.07; p=0.37) was associated with degree of functional limitation as described by the GMFCS. Clinical and epidemiological implications of findings are discussed.

s of Poster and Platform Presentations at the 2002 Combined Sections Meeting: Platform Presentations: PDF Only

OBJECTIVETo create gross motor function growth curves for children with Down syndrome (DS) and to estimate the probability that motor functions are achieved by different ages.DESIGNNonlinear growth curve analysis by using a 2-parameter (rate, upper limit) model.SETTINGEarly intervention programs, schools, and children's homes.PARTICIPANTSOne hundred twenty-one children with DS, ages 1 month to 6 years.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURESGross Motor Function Measure (GMFM) and severity of motor impairment.RESULTSThe curves for children with mild (n = 51) and moderate/severe (n = 70) impairment were characterized by a greater increase in GMFM scores during infancy and smaller increases as the children approached the predicted maximum score of 85.9 or 87.9. The estimated probability that a child would roll by 6 months was 51%; sit by 12 months, 78%; crawl by 18 months, 34%; walk by 24 months, 40%; and run, walk up stairs, and jump by 5 years, 45% to 52%.CONCLUSIONSChildren with DS require more time to learn movements as movement complexity increases. Impairment severity affected the rate but not the upper limit of motor function. The results have implications for counseling parents, making decisions about motor interventions, and anticipating the time frame for achievement of motor functions.

The purpose of this article is to describe our clinical experiences in using the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM) to evaluate motor development in children with Down syndrome and to provide strategies we found helpful in enhancing a child's adherence to standardized testing. The issues discussed are: (1) strategies for test administration; (2) modifications in administration and scoring; (3) reliability of the GMFM using the modified administration and scoring procedures; and (4) applications of the GMFM for clinical practice. The strategies and recommendations address the particular characteristics of children with Down syndrome and allow for their progress to be monitored relative to other children with Down syndrome rather than to children without motor delays. Future studies validating the use of specific goal areas for the administration and scoring of the GMFM for children with Down syndrome are recommended.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Development of gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy (CP) has not been documented. The purposes of this study were to examine a model of gross motor function in children with CP and to apply the model to construct gross motor function curves for each of the 5 levels of the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS).SUBJECTS:A stratified sample of 586 children with CP, 1 to 12 years of age, who reside in Ontario, Canada, and are known to rehabilitation centers participated.METHODS:Subjects were classified using the GMFCS, and gross motor function was measured with the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM). Four models were examined to construct curves that described the nonlinear relationship between age and gross motor function.RESULTS:The model in which both the limit parameter (maximum GMFM score) and the rate parameter (rate at which the maximum GMFM score is approached) vary for each GMFCS level explained 83% of the variation in GMFM scores. The predicted maximum GMFM scores differed among the 5 curves (level I=96.8, level II=89.3, level III=61.3, level IV=36.1, and level V=12.9). The rate at which children at level II approached their maximum GMFM score was slower than the rates for levels I and III. The correlation between GMFCS levels and GMFM scores was (.91. Logistic regression, used to estimate the probability that children with CP are able to achieve gross motor milestones based on their GMFM total scores, suggests that distinctions between GMFCS levels are clinically meaningful.CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION:Classification of children with CP based on functional abilities and limitations is predictive of gross motor function, whereas age alone is a poor predictor. Evaluation of gross motor function of children with CP by comparison with children of the same age and GMFCS level has implications for decision making and interpretation of intervention outcomes.

The Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM) was developed and validated originally by Russell and colleagues as an evaluative assessment of gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy (CP). The present study reports the results of reliability and validity testing of the GMFM for use with children with Down syndrome (DS). One hundred and twenty‐three children with DS were assessed twice over a 6‐month period, using the GMFM and the motor scale of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development ‐ second edition (BSDD‐II). In addition to the usual method of scoring the GMFM using only observed motor behaviours (standard score), parent reports of children's activities not seen by the assessor on the day of testing were also obtained and a second score (reported score) was calculated for each GMFM assessment. Test‐retest and interrater reliabilities were excellent (all > 0.90). Observed correlations between change on GMFM and judgements of change made independently by parents, intervenors, and masked video raters were lower than hypothesized. However, the pattern of change scores in predefined age and severity subgroups supported the contention that the GMFM was able to detect differential amounts of change as predicted. The GMFM was shown to be relatively more responsive to change in gross motor function than the motor scale of the BSID‐II. The ‘reported’ scores on the GMFM demonstrated better evidence of reliability, validity, and responsiveness than the standard scoring method and this approach is recommended for use when assessing children with DS.

s of Poster and Platform Presentations at the 1999 Combined Sections Meeting: Platform Presentations: PDF Only

To address the need for a standardized system to classify the gross motor function of children with cerebral palsy, the authors developed a five‐level classification system analogous to the staging and grading systems used in medicine. Nominal group process and Delphi survey consensus methods were used to examine content validity and revise the classification system until consensus among 48 experts (physical therapists, occupational therapists, and developmental pediatricians with expertise in cerebral palsy) was achieved. Interrater reliability ( k ) was 0.55 for children less than 2 years of age and 0.75 for children 2 to 12 years of age. The classification system has application for clinical practice, research, teaching, and administration.

s of Poster and Platform Presentations at the 1998 Combined Sections Meeting: Poster Presentations: PDF Only

RJ, Palisano; P, Rosenbaum; S, Walter; D, Russell; E, Wood; B, Galuppi Author Information