of0
Export
NINDS CDE Notice of Copyright
Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP)
Availability
Please visit this website for more information about the instrument:
Classification
Supplemental – Highly Recommended: Cerebral Palsy (CP)
Short Description of Instrument
Construct measured: Infant gross motor development
Generic vs. disease specific: Generic.
Means of administration: Examiner observation and administration.
Intended respondent: Administrator.
Background: Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP) was developed primarily to distinguish between infants with and without motor delays and evaluate infants over time with a secondary aim of predicting which infants may have future motor delay. It is validated in infants aged 32 weeks post-menstrual age to 4 months. The TIMP combines observation of infant movement and eliciting movement to assess both posture control and motor function.
Comments/Special Instructions
The TIMP must be performed by a trained provider. The provider performing the test first observes the infant. Then using standardized procedures, administers items to elicit a response. A manual with testing items is required and must be purchased.
Training can be done through a purchased instructional video, workshop, or online.
Scoring
Scoring: There are a total of 42 possible items for scoring. Thirteen are dichotomous items from the observation portion of the test with 29 items for the elicited portion of the test. These 29 items are scored on a four to seven-item rating scale. Raw scores, percentile ranks, age equivalent and growth scores can be used for interpretation.
 
Administration Time: 20–40 minutes
Rationale/Justification
Strengths/Weaknesses: This is a normed reference measure, originally validated in 990 infants in the United States at risk of a poor neurologic outcome. This is validatd for use in preterm infants.
 
Strengths: Provides valuable predictive information on motor development of age group tested and sensitive to show effects of physical therapy provided to high risk infants in the special care nursery.
 
Weaknesses: Requires expensive training workshops in order to be administered.
 
Clinical Applications: Along with identifying infants that are high risk for poor motor performance and showing progress with motor performance over time, this test can also be used to plan and assess outcomes of intervention for babies with low scores.
 
Psychometric Properties: Construct validity shows that it can discriminate between infants at low and high risk of motor problems. It is sensitive to age related change. May be able to discriminate infants with CP as young as 8 weeks of age. Has adequate concurrent validity with Alberta Infant Motor Scales through 3 months in term and preterm infants. Sensitivity and Specificity for predicting motor delay at 6 months of age in term and preterm infants was 62.5% (43.1–81.9) and 77.4% (67.0– 87.8). Test-retest, Interrater and intrarater reliability was excellent.
References
Campbell SK. The Test of Infant Motor Performance. Test User’s Manual Version 2.0. Chicago: Infant Motor Performance Scales, LLC, 2005.
 
Campbell SK.Test User's Manual for the Test of Infant Motor Performance V.3 for the TIMP Version 5. Chicago: Infant Motor Performance Scales, LLC, 2012.
 
Campbell SK, Zawacki L, Rankin KM, Yoder JC, Shapiro N, Li Z, White-Traut R. Concurrent validity of the TIMP and the Bayley III scales at 6 weeks corrected age. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2013;25(4):395–401.
 
Campbell SK, Swanlund A, Smith E, Liao PJ, Zawacki L. Validity of the TIMPSI for estimating concurrent performance on the test of infant motor performance. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2008;20(1):3–10.
 
Campbell SK, Kolobe TH, Wright BD, Linacre JM. Validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance for prediction of 6-, 9- and 12-month scores on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2002;44(4):263–272.
 
Campbell SK, Kolobe TH, Osten ET, Lenke M, Girolami GL. Construct validity of the test of infant motor performance. Phys Ther. 1995;75(7):585–596.
 
Additional References:
 
Barbosa VM, Campbell SK, Berbaum M. Discriminating infants from different developmental outcome groups using the Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP) item responses. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2007;19(1):28–39.
 
Barbosa VM, Campbell SK, Sheftel D, Singh J, Beligere N. Longitudinal performance of infants with cerebral palsy on the Test of Infant Motor Performance and on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2003;23(3):7–29.
 
Flegel J & Kolobe TH. Predictive validity of the test of infant motor performance as measured by the Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency at school age. Phys Ther. 2002;82(8):762–771.
 
Guimaraes CL, Reinaux CM, Botelho AC, Lima GM, Cabral Filho JE. Motor development evaluated by Test of Infant Motor Performance: comparison between preterm and full-term infants. Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia (Sao Carlos (Sao Paulo, Brazil)). 2011;15(5):357–362.
 
Langkamp DL & Harris S. Predicting Preschoo1 Motor and Cognitive Performance in Appropriate-for-gestationa I-age Children Born at – (32 Weeks Gestation). Early Dev Parent. 1992;1(2):89–96.
 
Murney ME, Campbell SK. The ecological relevance of the Test of Infant Motor Performance elicited scale items. Phys Ther. 1998;78(5):479–489.
 
Noble Y, Boyd R. Neonatal assessments for the preterm infant up to 4 months corrected age: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012;54(2):129-39.
 
Noble Y, Boyd R. Neonatal assessments for the preterm infant up to 4 months corrected age: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012;54(2):129–139.
 
Pederzolli N. Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP): Elon University; 2015 [cited 2016 14 July]. Available from: http://blogs.elon.edu/ptkids/2015/03/12/test-of-infant-motor-performance-timp/.
 
Spittle AJ, Doyle LW, Boyd RN. A systematic review of the clinimetric properties of neuromotor assessments for preterm infants during the first year of life. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008;50(4):254–266.
 
Washington KA, Harris SR. Mental and motor development of low birth-weight infants with normal developmental outcomes.  Pediatr Phys Ther. 1989;1:159–165. Pediatr Phys Ther. 1989;1:159–65.  
Page 1 of 1