DOI: 10.1097/PEP.0000000000000341
,
,
PMID: 27984463
Issn Print: 0898-5669
Publication Date: 2017/01/01
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email
 |
Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid | |
Excerpt
We believe the clinical bottom line is to understand the difference between activity performance (what the child “does do”) and motor capacity (what he or she “can do”). If we want to make the greatest effect on a child's activity and participation, we must focus on what they actually do, not what they can do under ideal circumstances. Physical and social environment and personal factors such as motivation and fatigue influence the relationship between capacity and performance. Many clinicians have already noted that at the onset of puberty, many children at Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels IV and V demonstrate a decline.
“What should I be mindful about when applying this information?”
Performance to capacity and capacity to performance were analyzed, meaning capacity was compared at one time point to performance 1 year later and vice versa. However, it may be more appropriate to look at changes in capacity and performance over time, and the relationship between the 2 pre- and postpuberty. There were no analyses to predict performance or capacity based on prepuberty status. In growing children and especially at puberty, there are changes in body functions, motivation, and environment such as variability in school setting and activity opportunity. Therefore, it is difficult to draw conclusions on the relationship between the 2 when they are not analyzed at the same time points.
Reliability and validity has not been established for the Chinese version of the ASKp or for data gathering by parent report.
