2021•Developmental Medicine & Child NeurologyOpen access

Measurement properties of the Gross Motor Function Classification System, Gross Motor Function Classification System‐Expanded & Revised, Manual Ability Classification System, and Communication Function Classification System in cerebral palsy: a systematic review with meta‐analysis

Daniele Piscitelli, Francesco Ferrarello, Alessandro Ugolini, Sofia Verola, Leonardo Pellicciari

Open full text 91 citations

Abstract

AIM: To systematically review and meta-analyse the measurement properties of the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), Gross Motor Function Classification System-Expanded & Revised (GMFCS-E&R), Manual Ability Classification System (MACS), and Communication Function Classification System (CFCS) in children with cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: Six databases were searched. Articles on the measurement properties of the GMFCS, GMFCS-E&R, MACS, and CFCS administered to children with CP were included. Quality was assessed by means of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist. The level and grading of evidence were defined for each measurement property. RESULTS: Forty-four articles were included in the systematic review and 37 articles were included in the meta-analysis. The level (grading) of evidence was strong (positive) for reliability and construct validity. Content validity displayed an unknown level of evidence for the GMFCS, limited evidence (positive) for the MACS, and moderate evidence (positive) for the CFCS. There was moderate (positive) evidence for measurement error in the GMFCS and MACS. The level of evidence for responsiveness was unknown. No studies investigated cross-cultural validity. INTERPRETATION: These instruments can be used by health care professionals and caregivers to quantify the constructs needed to measure ability in children with CP. Current high-quality evidence supports the use of these tools to classify ability in children with CP. Adopting the COSMIN guidelines, content, and cross-cultural validity should be investigated further. What this paper adds Strong evidence supports the reliability and construct validity of the GMFCS, GMFCS-E&R, MACS, and CFCS as functional classification systems in children with cerebral palsy. The GMFCS, GMFCS-E&R, MACS, and CFCS can be used by both health care professionals and caregivers. The GMFCS, GMFCS-E&R, MACS, and CFCS should not be used to detect change.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

AIM: To systematically review and meta-analyse the measurement properties of the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), Gross Motor Function Classification System-Expanded & Revised (GMFCS-E&R), Manual Ability Classification System (MACS), and Communication Function Classification System (CFCS) in children with cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: Six databases were searched. Articles on the measurement properties of the GMFCS, GMFCS-E&R, MACS, and CFCS administered to children with CP were included. Quality was assessed by means of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist. The level and grading of evidence were defined for each measurement property. RESULTS: Forty-four articles were included in the systematic review and 37 articles were included in the meta-analysis. The level (grading) of evidence was strong (positive) for reliability and construct validity. Content validity displayed an unknown level of evidence for the GMFCS, limited evidence (positive) for the MACS, and moderate evidence (positive) for the CFCS. There was moderate (positive) evidence for measurement error in the GMFCS and MACS. The level of evidence for responsiveness was unknown. No studies investigated cross-cultural validity. INTERPRETATION: These instruments can be used by health care professionals and caregivers to quantify the constructs needed to measure ability in children with CP. Current high-quality evidence supports the use of these tools to classify ability in children with CP. Adopting the COSMIN guidelines, content, and cross-cultural validity should be investigated further. What this paper adds Strong evidence supports the reliability and construct validity of the GMFCS, GMFCS-E&R, MACS, and CFCS as functional classification systems in children with cerebral palsy. The GMFCS, GMFCS-E&R, MACS, and CFCS can be used by both health care professionals and caregivers. The GMFCS, GMFCS-E&R, MACS, and CFCS should not be used to detect change.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 91 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

AIM: To systematically review and meta-analyse the measurement properties of the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS), Gross Motor Function Classification System-Expanded & Revised (GMFCS-E&R), Manual Ability Classification System (MACS), and Communication Function Classification System (CFCS) in children with cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: Six databases were searched. Articles on the measurement properties of the GMFCS, GMFCS-E&R, MACS, and CFCS administered to children with CP were included. Quality was assessed by means of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist. The level and grading of evidence were defined for each measurement property. RESULTS: Forty-four articles were included in the systematic review and 37 articles were included in the meta-analysis. The level (grading) of evidence was strong (positive) for reliability and construct validity. Content validity displayed an unknown level of evidence for the GMFCS, limited evidence (positive) for the MACS, and moderate evidence (positive) for the CFCS. There was moderate (positive) evidence for measurement error in the GMFCS and MACS. The level of evidence for responsiveness was unknown. No studies investigated cross-cultural validity. INTERPRETATION: These instruments can be used by health care professionals and caregivers to quantify the constructs needed to measure ability in children with CP. Current high-quality evidence supports the use of these tools to classify ability in children with CP. Adopting the COSMIN guidelines, content, and cross-cultural validity should be investigated further. What this paper adds Strong evidence supports the reliability and construct validity of the GMFCS, GMFCS-E&R, MACS, and CFCS as functional classification systems in children with cerebral palsy. The GMFCS, GMFCS-E&R, MACS, and CFCS can be used by both health care professionals and caregivers. The GMFCS, GMFCS-E&R, MACS, and CFCS should not be used to detect change.

Key concepts: Gross Motor Function Classification System, Cerebral palsy, Construct validity, Checklist, Grading (engineering), Content validity, Gross motor skill, Psychology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Measurement properties of the Gross Motor Function Classification System, Gross Motor Function Classification System‐Expanded & Revised, Manual Ability Classification System, and Communication Function Classification System in cerebral palsy: a systematic review with meta‐analysis — Research Paper | ScholarLens