A Narrative Review of Dexterity Assessments

Journal of Hand Therapy

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 258-270

  Yancosek, Katie E ^a   Howell, Dana ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^b EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTENT VALIDITY; COST; CRAWFORD SMALL PARTS DEXTERITY TEST; FACE VALIDITY; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; FUNCTIONAL DEXTERITY TEST; GROOVED PEGBOARD; HAND FUNCTION; HUMAN; JEBSENE TAYLOR TEST OF HAND FUNCTION; MINNESOTA RATE OF MANIPULATION TEST; MOBERG PICK UP TEST; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; NINE HOLE PEG TEST; O CONNOR FINGER DEXTERITY TEST; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PURDUE PEGBOARD; RELIABILITY;

ADULT; HAND; HUMANS; MOTOR SKILLS; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; VALIDATION STUDIES AS TOPIC;

EID: 67650441913     PISSN: 08941130     EISSN: 1545004X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jht.2008.11.004     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Backman C., Cork S., Gibson G., and Parsons J. Assessment of hand function: the relationship between pegboard dexterity and applied dexterity. Can J Occup Ther 59 (1992) 208-213
2. Gallus J., and Mathiowetz V. Test-retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard for persons with multiple sclerosis. Am J Occup Ther 57 (2003) 108-111
3. Williams M.E., Hadler N.M., and Earp J.L. Manual ability as a marker of dependency in geriatric women. J Chronic Dis 35 (1982) 115-122
4. Greenhalgh J., Long A.F., Brettle A.J., and Grant M.J. Reviewing and selecting outcome measures for use in routine practice. J Eval Clin Prac 4 (1998) 339-350
5. Rudman D., and Hannah S. An instrument evaluation framework: description and application to assessments of hand function. J Hand Ther 11 (1998) 266-277
6. Rosenthal R., and Rosnow R.L. Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis. 2nd ed. (1991), McGraw-Hill, New York
7. Wright R.W., Brand R.A., Dunn W., and Spindler K.P. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop 455 (2007) 23-29
8. Philips B., Sackett D., Badenoch D., Straus S., Haynes B., and Dawes M. Oxford Centre for evidence-based medicine levels of evidence. Available at:. http://www.cebm.net/index May 2001
9. Trombly C. Occupational Therapy for Physical Dysfunction. 4th ed. (1995), Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD
10. Mathiowetz V., Volland G., Kashman N., and Weber K. Adult norms for box and block test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther 39 (1985) 386-391
11. Svensson E., and Hager-Ross C. Hand function in Charcot-Marie Tooth: test-retest reliability of some measurements. Clin Rehabil 20 (2006) 896-908
12. Platz T., Pinkowski C., van Wijck F., Kim I., diBella P., and Johnson G. Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box And Block Test: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil 19 (2005) 404-411
13. Desrosiers J., Bravo G., Hebert R., Dutil E., and Mercier L. Validation of the Box and Block Test as a measure of dexterity in elderly people: reliability, validity, and norm study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75 (1994) 751-755
14. Berger Y. Does the Crawford Small Parts Dexterity Test require new norms?. Percept Motor Skills 60 (1985) 948-950
15. Aaron D.H., and Stegnik Jensen C.W. Development of the Functional Dexterity Test (FDT): construction, validity, reliability, and normative data. J Hand Ther 16 (2003) 12-21
16. Bryden P.J., and Roy E.A. A new method of administering the Grooved Pegboard Test: performance as a function of handedness and sex. Brain Cogn 58 (2005) 258-268
17. Ruff R.M., and Parker S.B. Gender and age-specific changes in motor speed and eye-hand coordination in adults: normative values for the finger tapping and Grooved Pegboard Tests. Percept Motor Skills 76 (1993) 1219-1230
18. Jebsen R.H., Taylor N., Trieschmann R.B., Trotter M.J., and Howard L.A. An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 50 (1969) 311-319
19. Lynch K.B., and Bridle M.J. Validity of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test in predicting activities of daily living. Occup Ther J Res 9 5 (1989) 316-319
20. Surrey L.R., Nelson K., Delelio C., et al. A comparison of performance outcomes between the Minnesota Rate of Manipulation Test and the Minnesota Manual Dexterity Test. Work 20 (2003) 97-102
21. Maiden D., and Dyson M. An examination of the validity of the Morrisby Manual Dexterity Test. Aust Occup Ther J 44 (1997) 177-185
22. Clopton N., Schafer S., Clopton J.R., and Winer J.L. Examinee position and performance on the Minnesota Rate of Manipulation Test. J Rehabil 1 (1984) 46-48
23. Gloss D.S., and Wardle M.G. Use of the Minnesota Rate of Manipulation Test for disability evaluation. Percept Mot Skills 55 (1982) 527-532
24. Shanthamani V.S. Industrial use of dexterity test. J Psychol Res 23 3 (1979) 200-205
25. Drussell R.D. Relationship of the Minnesota Rate of Manipulation Test with the industrial work performance of the adult cerebral palsied. Am J Occup Ther 13 (1959) 93-96
26. Goodkin D.E., Hertsgaard D., and Seminary J. Upper extremity function in multiple sclerosis: improving assessment sensitivity with Box-and-Block and Nine-Hole Peg Tests. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 69 (1988) 850-854
27. Desrosiers J., Rochette A., Hebert R., and Bravo G. The Minnesota Manual Dexterity Test: reliability, validity and reference values studies with healthy elderly people. Can J Occup Ther 64 (1997) 270-276
28. Moberg E. Objective methods for determining the functional value of sensibility in the hand. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 40 (1958) 454-476
29. Amirjani N., Ashworth N.L., Gordon T., Edwards D.C., and Chan M. Normative values and the effects of age, gender, and handedness on the Moberg Pick-Up Test. Muscle Nerve 35 (2007) 788-792
30. Jerosch-Herold C. A study of the relative responsiveness of five sensibility tests for assessment of recovery after median nerve injury and repair. J Hand Surg 3 (2003) 255-260
31. Ng C.L., Ho D.D., and Chow S.P. The Moberg Pick-Up Test: results of testing with a standard protocol. J Hand Ther 12 (1999) 309-312
32. Kellor M., Frost J., Silberberg N., Iversen I., and Cummings R. Hand strength and dexterity: norms for clinical use. Am J Occup Ther 25 2 (1971) 77-83
33. Mathiowetz V., Weber K., Kashman N., and Volland G. Adult norms for Nine Hole Peg Test of finger dexterity. Occup Ther J Res 5 1 (1985) 24-38
34. Grice K.O., Vogel K., Le V., Mitchell A., Muniz S., and Vollmer M.A. Adult norms for a commercially available Nine Hole Peg Test for finger dexterity. Am J Occup Ther 57 (2003) 570-573
35. Brandy D.A. The O'Connor Tweezer Dexterity Test as a screening tool for hiring surgical hair restoration assistants. J Cosmet Surg 12 (1995) 313-316
36. Corlett E.N., Salvendy G., and Seymour WD. Selecting operators for fine manual tasks: a study of the O'Connor Finger Dexterity Test and the Purdue Pegboard. Occup Psychol 45 (1971) 57-65
37. Gloss D.S., and Wardle M.G. Use of a test of psychomotor ability in an expanded role. Percept Mot Skills 53 (1981) 659-662
38. Buddenberg L., and Davis C. Test-retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard Test. Am J Occup Ther 54 (2000) 555-558
39. Hamm N.H., and Curtis D. Normative data for the Purdue Pegboard on a sample of adult candidates for vocational rehabilitation. Percept Mot Skills 50 (1980) 309-310
40. Tiffin J., and Asher E.J. The Purdue Pegboard: norms and studies of reliability and validity. J Appl Psychol 32 (1948) 234-247
41. Van Lankveld W., van't Pad Bosch P.J., Bakker J., Terwindt S., Franssen M., and van Riel P. Sequential occupational dexterity assessment (SODA): a new test to measure hand disability. J Hand Ther 9 (1996) 27-32
42. O'Connor D., Kortman B., Smith A., Ahern M., Smith M., and Krishnan J. Correlation between objective and subjective measures of hand function in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Hand Ther 12 (1999) 323-329
43. Van Lankeveld W., Graff M.J.L., and van't Pad Bosch P.J. The short version of the sequential occupational dexterity assessment based on individual tasks' sensitivity to change. Arthr Care Res 12 (1999) 417-424
44. Whitall J., Savin Jr. D.N., Harris-Love M., and McCombe Waller S. Psychometric properties of a Modified Wolf Motor Function Test for people with mild and moderate upper extremity hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87 (2006) 656-660
45. Morris D.M., Uswatte G., Crago J.E., Cook E.W., and Taub E. The reliability of the Wolf Motor Function Test for assessing upper extremity function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 82 (2001) 750-755
46. Wolf S.L., Catlin P.A., Ellis M., Archer A.L., Morgan B., and Piacentino A. Assessing Wolf Motor Function Test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke 32 (2001) 1635-1639
47. Wolf S.L., Thompson P.A., Morris D.M., et al. The EXCITE trial: attributes of the Wolf Motor Function Test in patients with subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 19 3 (2005) 194-204
48. Hui Yung Ang J., and Wai Kwong M.D. The discriminative power of the Wolf Motor Function Test in assessing upper extremity functions in persons with stroke. Int J Rehabil Res 29 (2006) 357-361