Esther,

Yes it can be very difficult to discriminate the mass information across multiple theories. You demonstrated the complexities with your attached summary. Seems your document was greatly influenced by Hadders-Algra (2000) in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology.

Anyway, it seems as you have “come along with the times” well. It’s always interesting to find how different clinicians change or don’t change with the paradigm shifts of motor control models and neurologic rehabilitation models. As many clinicians still proclaim the efficacy of Wikipedia reference-linkBobath/NDT and Vojta. When in fact they should not, relative to the evidence.

Also, we should tread lightly in accepting many of the current motor control models since they better explain typical/normal development and not otherwise. You might find interesting that Neuronal Group Selection Theory (NGST) is not spoke of much in the States. We appear to reference Dynamic Action Theory or Systems Theory much more. The geographical science preference is pretty overt. I would like to hear more of NGST since it appears to function closely with Evolutionary Theory and Behavioral Learning Theory (which are empirically validated “theories”).

So again, do you have a strong preference towards a specific model?

Oh and I only practice evidence-based.

I would love to hear others speak of theories and the applicability. Guess clinicians avoid the chatter.

Thank you Esther.

Bobby Nabeyama