Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Fall;22(3):246-57.
doi: 10.1097/PEP.0b013e3181e69490.

Refinement, reliability, and validity of the segmental assessment of trunk control

Penelope B Butler  1 , Sandy Saavedra, Madeline Sofranac, Sarah E Jarvis, Marjorie H Woollacott
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Refinement, reliability, and validity of the segmental assessment of trunk control

Penelope B Butler et al. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2010 Fall.

Abstract

Purpose: The Segmental Assessment of Trunk Control (SATCo) provides a systematic method of assessing discrete levels of trunk control in children with motor disabilities. This study refined the assessment method and examined reliability and validity of the SATCo.

Methods: After refining guidelines, 102 video recordings of the SATCo were made of 8 infants with typical development followed longitudinally from 3 to 9 months of age and 24 children with neuromotor disability with a mean age of 10 years 4 months. Eight researchers independently scored recordings.

Results: Intraclass correlation coefficient values for interrater reliability were more than 0.84 and 0.98 across all data sets and all aspects of control. Tests of concurrent validity with the Alberta Infant Motor Scales resulted in coefficients ranging from 0.86 to 0.88.

Conclusion: The SATCo is a reliable and valid measure allowing clinicians greater specificity in assessing trunk control.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Strategies for gaining support from hands and arms included exerting pressure from arms or hands against the evaluator’s hands (a), placing a hand on the bench (b) or on any part of the child’s own body (legs, trunk, head / mouth or other arm) (c and d) which has the effect of cross-bracing the trunk.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Strategies of inclining the trunk forward or backward allow a child to reduce the complexity of active control.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Collapsing the trunk over several specific segments was an active strategy rather than a passive collapse that presented either as a generalised rounding or with angulation. It can feature throughout the trunk as lordosis or kyphosis. This strategy was used more frequently in children with neuromotor disorder and seen briefly in only one infant with TD (c).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Harbourne RT, Giuliani C, Neela JM. A kinematic and electromyographic analysis of the development of sitting posture in infants. Dev Psychobiol. 1993;26:51–64. - PubMed
    1. Harbourne RT, Stergiou N. Nonlinear analysis of the development of sitting postural control. Dev Psychobiol. 2003;42:368–377. - PubMed
    1. Hadders-Algra M, Brogren E, Forssberg H. Development of postural control-differences between ventral and dorsal muscles? Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1998;22:501–506. - PubMed
    1. Woollacott M, Debu B, Mowatt M. Neuromuscular control of posture in the infant and child: is vision dominant? J Mot Behav. 1987;19(2):167–186. - PubMed
    1. Hirschfeld H, Forssberg H. Epigenetic development of postural responses for sitting during infancy. Exp Brain Res. 1994;97:528–540. - PubMed

Publication types