Gross Motor Function Classification System has discriminative purposes but does not assess short-term therapy goals. Locomotion Stages (LS) classify postural body functions and independent activity components. Assessing the relation between Gross Motor Function Classification System level and Locomotion Stages will make us understand if clinical assessment can explain and predict motor environmental performance in cerebral palsy. A total of 462 children were assessed with both scales. High reliability and strong negative correlation (–0.908) for Gross Motor Function Classification System and Locomotion Stages at any age was found. Sensitivity was 83%, and specificity and positive predictive value were 100% within the same age range. Regression analysis showed detailed probabilities for the realization of the Gross Motor Function Classification System depending on the Locomotion Stages and the age group. Postural body function measure with Locomotion Stages is reliable, sensitive, and specific for gross motor function and able to predict environmental performance.
PalisanoRRosenbaumPWalterS. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1997;39:214–223.
2.
KeeratisirojOThawinchaiNSiritaratiwatWBuntragulpoontaweeM. Prognostic predictors for ambulation in Thai children with cerebral palsy aged 2 to 18 years. J Child Neurol. 2015.
3.
JooyeonKJi-HeaWJin-GangH. The reliability and concurrent validity of the GMFCS for children with cerebral palsy. J Phys Ther Sci. 2011;23:255–258.
4.
MaystonMJ. Physiotherapy for children: setting the scene for management of the child with neurological movement disorder. In: PountneyT, ed. Physiotherapy for Children. Edinburgh: Butterworth-Heinemann/Elsevier; 2008:61–72.
5.
WallenMZivianiJNaylorO. Modified constraint-induced therapy for children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy: a randomized trial. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2001;53:1091–1099.
6.
GunelMKMutluATarsusluT. Relationship among the Manual Ability Classification System (MACS), the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), and the functional status (WeeFIM) in children with spastic cerebral palsy. Eur J Pediatr. 2009;168:477–485.
7.
GrayLNgHBartlettD. The Gross Motor Function Classification System: an update on impact and clinical utility. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2010;3:315–320.
8.
CarnahanKDArnerMHagglundG. Association between gross motor function (GMFCS) and manual ability (MACS) in children with cerebral palsy. A population-based study of 359 children. BMC Muscoloskelet Disord. 2007;8:50.
9.
PalisanoRJHannaSRosenbaumP. Probability of walking, wheeled mobility, and assisted mobility in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2010;52:66–71.
10.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: WHO; 2001.
11.
VojtaV. Zur Prognose der spät behandelten cerebralparetischen Kinder. Der Kinderarzt. 1987;9:1161–1172.
12.
VojtaV. Is there any therapy for cerebral palsy children?J Korean Acad Rehabil Med. 1986;10:87–95.
13.
SchulzPVojtaVErnstWK. Follow up in 577 children with different infantile cerebral palsy syndromes treated by reflex locomotion according to Vojta. In: TaguchiKIgarashiMMoriS, eds. Vestibular and neural front. Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Posture and Gait; 1994 October 3-7; Matsumoto, Japan. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 219–222.
14.
Sanchez de MuniainP. Rehabilitation of cerebral palsy with reflex locomotion therapy and its effect in the grasping function (in Spanish). PhD thesis, Complutense University (Medicine), Madrid, Spain; 1992.
15.
Luna OlivaL. Functional independency measurement in children with spastic diplegia according with their locomotion stage (in Spanish). PhD thesis, Rey Juan Carlos University: Madrid, Spain; 2006.
16.
VojtaV. Pediatric motor disorders (in Spanish). 2nd ed. Madrid: Morata editors; 2005.
17.
JengSFYauKITChenLC. Alberta Infant Motor Scale: reliability and validity when used on preterm infant in Taiwan. Phys Ther. 2000;80:168–177.
18.
RosenbaumPLWalterSDHannaSE. Prognosis for Gross Motor Function in Cerebral Palsy: creation of motor development curves. JAMA. 2002;288:1357–1363.
19.
Surveillance of Cerebral Palsy in Europe. SCPE: a collaboration of cerebral palsy surveys and registers. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2000;42:816–824.
20.
BaxMGoldsteinMRosenbaumP. Executive Committee for the Definition of Cerebral Palsy. Proposed definition and classification of cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2005;47:571–576.
21.
Winter BodkinARobinsonCPeralesF. Reliability and validity of the Gross Motor Function Classification System for cerebral palsy. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2003;15:247–252.
22.
PapavasiliouASRapidiCARizouC. Reliability of Greek version Gross Motor Function Classification System. Brain Dev. 2007;29:79–82.
23.
MorrisCKurinczukJJFitzpatrickR. Who best to make the assessment? Professionals and families’ classifications of gross motor function are highly consistent. Arch Dis Child. 2006;9:675–679.
24.
McDowellBCKerrCParkesJ. Interobserver agreement of the Gross Motor Function Classification System in an ambulant population of children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2007;49:528–533.
25.
JewellATStokesAIBartlettDJ. Correspondence of classifications between parents of children with cerebral palsy aged 2 to 6 years and therapists using the Gross Motor Function Classification System. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2011;53:334–337.
26.
IvanenkoYPDominiciNCappelliniG. Kinematics in newly walking toddlers does not depend upon postural stability. J Neurophysiol. 2005;94:754–763.
27.
Shumway-CookAWoollacottMH. Motor Control: Translating Research into Clinical Practice. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
28.
KandaTPidcockFSHayakawaK. Motor outcome differences between two groups of children with spastic diplegia who received different intensities of early onset physiotherapy followed for 5 years. Brain Dev. 2004;26:118–126.
29.
KouwakiMYokochiMTogawaY. Spontaneous movements in the supine position of healthy term infants and preterm infants with or without periventricular leukomalacia. Brain Dev. 2013;35:340–348.
