Revolution in progress: A Conceptual Framework for Examination and Intervention Part II

Neurology Report

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 42-46

  Campbell, Suzann K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 76849092452     PISSN: 1085049X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01253086-200024020-00005     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed, enlarged. Chicago, 111: University of Chicago Press; 1970: 111.
2. Russ M. Mystery of Mysteries. Is Evolution a Social Construction. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1999.
3. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott M. Motor Control: Theory and Practical Applications. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins; 1995.
4. Carr JH, Shepherd RB, eds. Movement Science: Foundations for Physical Therapy in Rehabilitation. Rockville, Md: Aspen; 1987.
5. Thelen E, Kelso JAS, Fogel A. Self-organizing systems and infant motor development. Develop Rev. 1987; 7: 39-65.
6. Edelman GM. Neural Darwinism. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1987.
7. Edelman GM. Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1992.
8. Rosenbaum PL, King S, Law M et al. Family-centred service: A conceptual framework and research review. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 1998; 18(l): l-20.
9. Campbell SK. The child’s development of functional movement. In: Campbell SK, Vander Linden DW, Palisano RJ, eds. Physical Therapy for Children. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 2000: 1-44.
10. Sporns O, Edelman GM. Solving Bernstein’s problem: a proposal for the development of coordinated movement by selection. Child Dev. 1993; 64: 960-981.
11. Campbell SK. The infant at risk for developmental disability. In: Campbell SK, ed. Decision Making in Pediatric Neurologic Physical Therapy. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1999: 260-332.
12. Als H, Lawhon G, Duffy FH et al. Individualized developmental care for the very low-birth-weight preterm infants. jMAL4. 1994; 272: 853.
13. Brazelton TB, Nugent JK. Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale. 3rd ed. London, England: Cambridge University Press; 1995.
14. Ferrari F, Cioni G, Prechtl HRF. Qualitative changes of general movements in preterm infants with brain lesions. Early Hum Develop. 1990; 23: 193-231.
15. Campbell SK, Kolobe THA, Osten ET et al. Construct validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance. Phys Ther. 1995; 75: 585-596.
16. Murney ME, Campbell SK. The ecological relevance of the Test of Infant Motor Performance Elicited Scale items. Phys Ther. 1998; 78: 479-489.
17. Campbell SK. Test-retest reliability of the Test of Infant Motor Performance. Pediatr Phys Ther. 1999; 11: 60-66.
18. Campbell SK, Hedeker D. Discriminative validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance. Child Dev. (Unpublished data, 2000).
19. Heriza C. Motor development: traditional and contemporary theories. In: Lister MJ, ed. Contemporary Management of Motor Control Problems: Proceedings of the II STEP Conference. Alexandria, Va: Foundation for Physical Therapy; 1991: 99-126.
20. Larin HM. Motor learning: theories and strategies for the practitioner. In: Campbell SK, Vander Linden DW, Palisano RJ, eds. Physical Therapy for Children. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 2000: 170-197.
21. Girolami G, Campbell SK. Efficacy of a Neuro-Developmental Treatment program to improve motor control of preterm infants. Pediatr Phys Ther. 1994; 6(4): 175-184.
22. Tscharnuter I. A new therapy approach to movement organization. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 1993; 13(2): 19-40.
23. Gentile AM. The nature of skill acquisition: Therapeutic implications for children with movement disorders. In: Forssberg H, Hirschfeld H, eds. Movement Disorders in Children. Karger, Basel, Switzerland: Karger; 1992.