Nine-Hole Peg Test: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
=== Validity === | === Validity === | ||
<u>Criterion Validity:</u> | |||
<u></u>''Stroke:''<br>(Sunderland et al, 1989; n = 38; mean age = 67, Acute Stroke) <ref>Sunderland, A., Tinson, D., et al. "Arm function after stroke. An evaluation of grip strength as a measure of recovery and a prognostic indicator." British Medical Journal 1989 52(11): 1267</ref> | |||
*Poor concurrent validity with Frenchay Arm Test: 27% of cases incorrectly classified | |||
*Poor predictive validity: NHPT administered at 1 month did not predict functional outcomes at 6 months post stroke | |||
''Healthy Adults:''<br>(Wang et al, 2011) <ref>Wang, Y. C., Magasi, S. R., et al. "Assessing dexterity function: a comparison of two alternatives for the NIH Toolbox." Journal of Hand Therapy 2011 24(4): 313-320; quiz 321</ref> | |||
*Adequate correlation with the Purdue Pegboard test (p = -0.74 to -0.75) | |||
*Excellent correlation with the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (p = -0.87 to -0.89) | |||
<u>Construct Validity:</u> | |||
''Stroke:''<br>(Parker et al, 1986; 2 weeks, 3 & 6 months post onset, Acute Stroke) <ref>Parker, V. M., Wade, D. T., et al. "Loss of arm function after stroke: measurement, frequency, and recovery." Int Rehabil Med 1986 8(2): 69-73</ref><br> | |||
*Excellent convergent validity with Motricity Index (r = 0.82) | |||
=== Responsiveness === | === Responsiveness === |
Revision as of 18:00, 28 August 2014
Original Editor - Your name will be added here if you created the original content for this page.
Top Contributors - Sinead Greenan, Kim Jackson, Scott Buxton, Chloe Waller, Evan Thomas, Oyemi Sillo, WikiSysop, Amrita Patro, Admin and Naomi O'Reilly
Objective
[edit | edit source]
The Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) is used to measure finger dexterity in patients with various neurological diagnoses.
Intended Population
[edit | edit source]
Patients with Stroke, Brain Injury, Parkinson's Disease
Method of Use[edit | edit source]
Description:
- Administered by asking the client to take the pegs from a container, one by one, and place them into the holes on the board, as quickly as possible
- Participants must then remove the pegs from the holes, one by one, and replace them back into the container
- The board should be placed at the client's midline, with the container holding the pegs oriented towards the hand being tested
- Only the hand being evaluated should perform the test
- Hand not being evaluated is permitted to hold the edge of the board in order to provide stability
- Scores are based on the time taken to complete the test activity, recorded in seconds
- Alternative scoring - the number of pegs placed in 50 or 100 seconds can be recorded. In this case, results are expressed as the number of pegs placed per second
- Stopwatch should be started from the moment the participant touches the first peg until the moment the last peg hits the container
Equipment Required:
- Board (wood or plastic): with 9 holes (10 mm diameter, 15 mm depth), placed apart by 32 mm (Mathiowetz et al, 1985[1]; Sommerfeld et al., 2004[2]) or 50 mm (Heller, Wade, Wood, Sunderland, Hewer, & Ward, 1987[3])
- A container for the pegs: square box (100 x 100 x 10 mm) apart from the board or a shallow round dish at the end of the board (Grice et al, 2003[4])
- 9 pegs (7 mm diameter, 32 mm length) (Mathiowetz et al, 1985[5])
- A stopwatch
Reference
[edit | edit source]
Evidence[edit | edit source]
Reliability[edit | edit source]
Test-retest Reliability:
Stroke:
(Chen et al, 2009, Acute and Chronic Stroke) [6]
- Excellent test-retest reliability for entire group (ICC = 0.85)
- Adequate test-retest reliability for individuals with hand spasticity (ICC = 0.64)Excellent test-retest reliability for individuals without hand spasticity (ICC = 0.86)
Parkinson's Disease:
(Earhart et al, 2011) [7]
- Excellent test retest reliability (ICC = 0.88 for dominant hand and ICC = 0.91 for nondominant hand)
Healthy Adults:
(Wang et al 2011; n = 305; mean age = 32 (26); age range = 3 - 85 years) [8]
- Excellent test retest reliability (ICC = 0.95 for right hand, ICC = 0.92 for left hand)
Interrater/Intrarater Reliability:
Healthy Adults:
(Grice et al, 2003, Healthy Adults) [9]
- Excellent interrater reliability for the right hand (r = 0.984)
- Excellent interrater reliability for the left hand (r = 0.993)
Stroke: (Heller et al, 1987; n = 56; mean age = 72 (9.9) years; assessed < 3 months post-stroke, Acute Stroke) [10]
- Adequate to excellent intrarater reliability (r = 0.68 to 0.99)
- Excellent interrater reliability (r = 0.75 to 0.99)
Validity[edit | edit source]
Criterion Validity:
Stroke:
(Sunderland et al, 1989; n = 38; mean age = 67, Acute Stroke) [11]
- Poor concurrent validity with Frenchay Arm Test: 27% of cases incorrectly classified
- Poor predictive validity: NHPT administered at 1 month did not predict functional outcomes at 6 months post stroke
Healthy Adults:
(Wang et al, 2011) [12]
- Adequate correlation with the Purdue Pegboard test (p = -0.74 to -0.75)
- Excellent correlation with the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (p = -0.87 to -0.89)
Construct Validity:
Stroke:
(Parker et al, 1986; 2 weeks, 3 & 6 months post onset, Acute Stroke) [13]
- Excellent convergent validity with Motricity Index (r = 0.82)
Responsiveness[edit | edit source]
Miscellaneous
[edit | edit source]
Links[edit | edit source]
Recent Related Research (from Pubmed)[edit | edit source]
Extension:RSS -- Error: Not a valid URL: Feed goes here!!|charset=UTF-8|short|max=10
References[edit | edit source]
References will automatically be added here, see adding references tutorial.
- ↑ Mathiowetz, V., Kashman, N., et al. "Grip and pinch strength: normative data for adults." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1985 66(2): 69-74
- ↑ Sommerfeld, D. K., Eek, E. U., et al. "Spasticity after stroke: its occurrence and association with motor impairments and activity limitations." Stroke 2004 35(1): 134-139
- ↑ Heller, A., Wade, D. T., et al. "Arm function after stroke: measurement and recovery over the first three months." Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1987 50(6): 714-719
- ↑ Grice, K. O., Vogel, K. A., et al. "Adult norms for a commercially available Nine Hole Peg Test for finger dexterity." The American journal of occupational therapy 2003 57(5): 570-573
- ↑ Mathiowetz, V., Kashman, N., et al. "Grip and pinch strength: normative data for adults." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1985 66(2): 69-74
- ↑ Chen, H. M., Chen, C. C., et al. "Test-retest reproducibility and smallest real difference of 5 hand function tests in patients with stroke." Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009 23(5): 435-440
- ↑ Earhart, G. M., Cavanaugh, J. T., et al. "The 9-hole PEG test of upper extremity function: average values, test-retest reliability, and factors contributing to performance in people with Parkinson disease." J Neurol Phys Ther 2011 35(4): 157-163
- ↑ Wang, Y. C., Magasi, S. R., et al. "Assessing dexterity function: a comparison of two alternatives for the NIH Toolbox." Journal of Hand Therapy 2011 24(4): 313-320; quiz 321
- ↑ Grice, K. O., Vogel, K. A., et al. "Adult norms for a commercially available Nine Hole Peg Test for finger dexterity." The American journal of occupational therapy 2003 57(5): 570-573
- ↑ Heller, A., Wade, D. T., et al. "Arm function after stroke: measurement and recovery over the first three months." Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1987 50(6): 714-719
- ↑ Sunderland, A., Tinson, D., et al. "Arm function after stroke. An evaluation of grip strength as a measure of recovery and a prognostic indicator." British Medical Journal 1989 52(11): 1267
- ↑ Wang, Y. C., Magasi, S. R., et al. "Assessing dexterity function: a comparison of two alternatives for the NIH Toolbox." Journal of Hand Therapy 2011 24(4): 313-320; quiz 321
- ↑ Parker, V. M., Wade, D. T., et al. "Loss of arm function after stroke: measurement, frequency, and recovery." Int Rehabil Med 1986 8(2): 69-73