The Purdue Pegboard Test (PPT) is crucial for assessing fine dexterity of patients with hand injury. Determining the PPT cutoff value is needed to distinguish patients with impaired hand dexterity from those with unimpaired hand dexterity. The aim of this article is to examine the construct validity of PPT and to determine its cutoff values for patients with hand injuries.
Method
The PPT and Disabilities of Arm Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire Turkish version (DASH-T) were used to measure hand dexterity. To examine construct validity, we measured the correlation between PPT and DASH-T. The cutoff values were determined using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve generated with sensitivity and 1-specificity. We recruited 101 patients with hand injury and 162 healthy participants.
Results
Correlation between all subtests of PPT and DASH-T were weak (r = −0.282; −0.473: p<0.05). The cutoff value for the assembly subtest of PPT was 24.5. The range of area under the curve (AUC) values for PPT subtests was good to excellent (AUC: 0.82–0.92).
Conclusion
The current study demonstrates that PPT is a valid instrument for measuring hand dexterity in patients with hand injury. Results also suggest that PPT distinguished the patients with impaired hand function from those with unimpaired hand dexterity.
AmirjaniNAshworthNLOlsonJL, et al. (2011) Validity and reliability of the Purdue Pegboard Test in carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle & Nerve43(2): 171–177.
2.
BackmanCGibsonSCDParsonsJ (1992) Assessment of hand function: the relationship between pegboard dexterity and applied dexterity. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy59(4): 208–213.
3.
BakerKL (2020) Functional Tests for Dexterity. In: SkirvenTMOstermanALFedorczykJ., et al. (eds). Rehabilitation of the Hand and Upper Extremity, 2-Volume set E-book: Expert Consult[eBook]. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences, 133–141.
4.
BolinkSAANGrimmBHeyligersIC (2015) Patient-reported outcome measures versus inertial performance-based outcome measures: a prospective study in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. The Knee22(6): 618–623.
5.
Bovend'EerdtTJ.DawesHJohansen-BergH., et al. (2004) Evaluation of the modifid Jebsen test of hand function and the university of maryland arm questionnaire for stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation18(2): 195–202.
6.
BuddenbergLADavisC (2000) Test-retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard Test. American Journal of Occupational Therapy54: 555–558.
7.
DesrosiersJHébertRBravoG, et al. (1995) The Purdue Pegboard Test: Normative data for people aged 60 and over. Disability and Rehabilitation17: 217–224.
8.
De VetHCTerweeCBMokkinkLB, et al. (2011) Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
DugerTYakutEOksuzC, et al. (2006) Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) Questionnaire. Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy Rehabilitation-Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon17(3): 99–107.
10.
DuruözMT (2019) Chapter 3: assessment of hand functions. In: DuruözMT (ed). Hand Function- A Pratical Guide to Assessment. New York,USA: Springer, 43–53.
FitzpatrickRDaveyCBuxtonMJ, et al. (1998) Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment2(14): 3–18.
13.
GintyAT (2013) Construct validity. In: GellmanMDTurnerJR (eds). Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. New York, NY: Springer.
14.
GoldfarbCAKleppsSJDaileyLA, et al. (2002) Functional outcome after centralization for radius dysplasia. The Journal of Hand Surgery27(1): 118–124.
15.
GonzalezVRowsonJYoxallA (2017) Analyzing finger interdependencies during the Purdue Pegboard Test and comparative activities of daily living. Journal of Hand Therapy30(1): 80–88.
16.
HabibzadehFHabibzadehPYadollahieM (2016) On determining the most appropriate test cut-off value: the case of tests with continuous results. Biochemia Medica26(3): 297–307.
17.
IrieKIsekiHOkamotoK, et al. (2020) Introduction of the Purdue Pegboard Test for fine assessment of severity of cervical myelopathy before and after surgery. Journal of Physical Therapy Science32(3): 210–214.
18.
KleinRDKotsisSVChungKC (2003) Open carpal tunnel release using a 1-centimeter incision: technique and outcomes for 104 patients. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery111(5): 1616–1622.
19.
KleinbaumDGKleinM (2010) Assessing Discriminatory Performance of a Binary Logistic Model: ROC Curves, Logistic Regression. New York, NY: Springer, 345–387.
20.
McDowellI (2006) Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. USA: Oxford University Press.
21.
MokkinkLBTerweeCBPatrickDL, et al. (2012) COSMIN Checklist Manual. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: University Medical Center.
22.
NieNHBentDHHullCH (1975) SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill, Vol. 227.
23.
O’ConnorDKortmanBSmithA, et al. (1999) Correlation between objective and subjective measures of hand function in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Hand Therapy12(4): 323–329.
24.
ÖksüzÇSığırtmaçİCLeblebicioğluG (2017) 1.2 hand outcome measurements. Evidence Based Data In Hand Surgery And Therapy23–83.
25.
PolitDFYangF (2016) Measurement and the measurement of change: a primer for health professionals. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
26.
ProudELMillerKJBilneyB, et al. (2020) Construct validity of the 9-Hole Peg test and Purdue Pegboard test in people with mild to moderately severe Parkinson's disease. Physiotherapy107: 202–208.
27.
SchoneveldKWittinkHTakkenT (2009) Clinimetric evaluation of measurement tools used in hand therapy to assess activity and participation. Journal of Hand Therapy22(3): 221–236.
28.
SearsEDChungKC (2010) Validity and responsiveness of the Jebsen-Taylor hand function test. The Journal of Hand Surgery35(1): 30–37.
29.
ShaharRBKizonyRNotaA (1998) Validity of the purdue pegboard test in assessing patients after traumatic hand injury. Work11(3): 315–320.
30.
SynnottKMullettHFaullH, et al. (2000) Outcome measures following metacarpophalangeal joint replacement. Journal of Hand Surgery25(6): 601–603.
31.
SığırtmaçİCÖksüzÇ (2020) Investigation of reliability, validity, and cutoff value of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test. Journal of Hand TherapyS0894–S1130. Article in press.
32.
TerweeCBMokkinkLBKnolDL, et al. (2011) Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research21(4): 651–657.
33.
TiffinJAsherEJ (1948) The purdue pegboard: norms and studies of reliability and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology32(3): 234.
34.
van de Ven-StevensLAMunnekeMTerweeCB, et al. (2009) Clinimetric properties of instruments to assess activities in patients with hand injury: a systematic review of the literature. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation90(1): 151–169.
35.
Ven-StevensLGraffMSellesR, et al. (2015) Instruments for assessment of impairments and activity limitations in patients with hand conditions: a European Delphi study. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine47(10): 948–956.
36.
YongJMacDermidJCPackhamT (2020) Defining dexterity-Untangling the discourse in clinical practice. Journal of Hand Therapy: Official Journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists33(4): 517–519.
