A comparison of developmental versus functional assessment in the rehabilitation of young children.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to explore the differences in and potential uses of information derived from developmental vs. functional assessment during the acute rehabilitation of very young children with acquired brain injury. Both methods of assessment are typically used during hospitalization in order to assist in developing individualized goals and outcome measures. With the trend of shortened hospital stays, effective assessment for determining optimal treatment goals and outcomes becomes increasingly important. The results from a developmental and a functional assessment obtained on 23 inpatient children below 6 years of age who had experienced either an acquired brain injury or encephalitis were compared. The data was collected through a retrospective chart review spanning 4 years.

Methods and outcome measures: Each child received a cognitive and a language test using either the Early Learning Accomplishment Profile (E-LAP) or the Learning Accomplishment Profile Diagnostic (LAP-D) for the developmental assessment measure. The Functional Independence Measure for Children (WeeFIM) was used as a functional assessment. Summary statistics and frequencies were calculated for variables including age and diagnosis. Partial Pearson correlations and 95% confidence intervals were calculated between the functional and developmental assessments, adjusting for the amount of time between administrations of the two exams. Pearson correlations were computed between length of hospital stay and performance on the developmental and functional quotients.

Results: Moderate, statistically significant Pearson partial correlations were found between the E-LAP/LAP-D cognitive quotient and the WeeFIM cognitive quotient (r = 0.42, 95% CI (0, 0.72)), the E-LAP/LAP-D language quotient and the WeeFIM cognitive quotient (r = 0.55, 95% CI (0.17, 0.79)) and the E-LAP/LAP-D cognitive quotient and the WeeFIM total quotient (r = 0.50, 95% CI (0.10, 0.76)). An inverse correlation was found between the length of stay and the E-LAP/ LAP-D cognitive quotient (r = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.86, -0.34)) as well as the E-LAP/LAP-D language quotient (r = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.83, -0.23)).

Conclusions: The moderate but limited correlations between developmental and functional assessments may be attributed to differences in the two forms of assessment including the test items, their administration and scoring. While both forms of assessment were thought to be useful for developing individualized treatment goals and measuring outcomes, there were advantages and disadvantages to each.