Physical impairments are not necessarily coupled with functional limitations. For this reason, it is important to assess not only body functions and structures, but also activities and/or participation to decide which intervention is indicated and to evaluate the effect of the intervention in a valid way.
The purpose of this review was to examine available instruments for assessing the limitations in activity and their application within the clinical reasoning process in patients with hand injuries.
A literature search identified instruments that met four selection criteria: quality of information, target population, percentage items related to hand function, and a focus on activities. The selected instruments were categorised according to three items: the specific components, the aspects of activity that could be assessed with it and how activity was assessed (questionnaire or otherwise). Seventy two instruments were identified, of which 23 met the selection criteria. These selected instruments showed important differences in the constructs they assessed and in the manner of assessment.
Instruments to assess limitations of activity as a result of hand injury should be evaluated further in terms of reliability and validity, before their use within the clinical reasoning process can be standardised.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AaronDH, and JansenCW (2003). ‘Development of the Functional Dexterity Test (FDT): construction, validity, reliability, and normative data’, Journal of Hand Therapy16(1): 12–21.
2.
BackmanC, and MackieH (1997). ‘Reliability and validity of the arthritis hand function test in adults with osteoarthritis’, Occupational Therapy Journal Res17(1): 55–66.
3.
BoerIG d, Drie-VerschoorP v, HuijsmansAM, Corstens-MignotM, CupEHC, and BerendsenEMJ (2001). ‘Betrouwbaarheid van de Radboud Skills Test (RST); Een onderzoek naar de inter- en intrabeoordelaars-betrouwbaarheid van de RST’, Ned Tijdschr Ergotherapie29,1: 15–9.
4.
BouterLM, and DongenMCJM v (1995). Epidemiologisch onderzoek : opzet en interpretatie, 3e herz. dr edn, Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum, Houten.
5.
BuddenbergLA, and DavisC (2000). ‘Test-retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard Test’, American Journal of Occupational Therapy54(5): 555–8.
6.
CarrollD (1967). ‘An upper extremity function test’, Maryland State Medical Journal16(2): 97–100.
7.
CasanovaJS (Ed 1992). Clinical Assessment Recommendations, 2nd edn, American Society of Hand Therapists, Chicago.
8.
ChungKC, HamillJB, WaltersMR, and HaywardRA (1999). ‘The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ): assessment of responsiveness to clinical change’, Annals Plastic Surgery42(6): 619–22.
9.
ChungKC, PillsburyMS, WaltersMR, and HaywardRA (1998). ‘Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire’, Journal of Hand Surgery23-A(4):575–87.
10.
CupEHC, van de Ven-StevensLA, and Corstens-MignotM (1998). Radboud Skills Test, Afdeling ergotherapie UMC Sint Radboud, Nijmegen.
11.
CupEHC, van de Ven-StevensLA, and Corstens-MignotM (1999). ‘Radboud Skills Test. Een ziektespecifieke functionele handentest voor patiënten met Complex Regionaal Pijn Syndroom (CRPS) aan één bovenste extremiteit’, Ned Tijdschr Ergotherapie27(4): 152–6.
12.
DesrosiersJ, BravoG, HebertR, DutilE, and MercierL (1994a). ‘Validation of the Box and Block Test as a measure of dexterity of elderly people: reliability, validity, and norms studies’, Archives Physical Medicine Rehabilitation75(7): 751–5.
13.
DesrosiersJ, HebertR, BravoG, and DutilE (1995a). ‘The Purdue Pegboard Test normative data for people aged 60 and over’, Disability and Rehabilitation17(5): 217–24.
14.
DesrosiersJ, HebertR, BravoG, and DutilE (1995b). ‘Upper extremity performance test for the elderly (TEMPA): normative data and correlates with sensorimotor parameters. Test d'Evaluation des Membres Superieurs de Personnes Agées’, Archives Physical Medical Rehabilitation76(12): 1125–9.
15.
DesrosiersJ, HebertR, DutilE, and BravoG (1993). ‘Development and reliability of an upper extremity function test for the elderly: the TEMPA’, Canadian Journal Occupational Therapy60(1): 9–16.
16.
DesrosiersJ, HebertR, DutilE, BravoG, and MercierL (1994b). ‘Validity of the TEMPA: a measurement instrument for upper extremity performance’, Occupational Therapy Journal of Research14(4): 267–81.
17.
DesrosiersJ, RochetteA, HebertR, and BravoG (1997). ‘The Minnesota Manual Dexterity Test: reliability, validity and reference values studies with healthy elderly people’, Canadian Journal Occupational Therapy64(5): 270–6.
18.
HooglandAM, MaH v. K-M, and LankveldWGJM v. (1999). ‘De SODA, vier jaar na de introductie’, Ned Tijdschr Ergotherapie27:202–7.
19.
HudakPL, AmadioPC, BombardierC, BeatonD, ColeD, DavisA, HawkerG, KatzJN, MakelaM, MarxRG, PunnettL, and WrightJ (1996). ‘Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) (vol 29, pg 602, 1996)’, American Journal of Industrial Medicine30(3): 372.
20.
JebsenRH, TaylorN, TrieschmannRB, TrotterMJ, and HowardLA (1969). ‘An Objective and Standardized Test of Hand Function’, Archives Physical Medicine Rehabilitation50(6): 311–9.
21.
LawM, BaptisteS, CarswellA, McCollM, PolatajkoH, and PollockN (1998a). Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, 3rd edn, CAOT Publications ACE, Toronto.
22.
LawM, BaptisteS, McCollM, OpzoomerA, PolatajkoH, and PollockN (1990). The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: an outcome measure for occupational therapy, Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy57(2): 82–7.
23.
LevineDW, SimmonsBP, KorisMJ, DaltroyLH, HohlGG, FosselAH, and KatzJN (1993). ‘A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome’, Journal of Bone Joint Surgery75-A(11):1585–92.
24.
LightCM, ChappellPH, and KyberdPJ (2002). ‘Establishing a standardized clinical assessment tool of pathologic and prosthetic hand function: Normative data, reliability, and validity’, Archives Physical Medicine Rehabilitation83(6): 776–83.
25.
MathiowetzV, RogersSL, Dowe KevalM, DonahoeL, and RennellsC (1986). ‘The Purdue Pegboard: norms for 14- to 19-year-olds’, American Journal of Occupational Therapy40(3): 174–9.
26.
MathiowetzV, VollandG, KashmanN, and WeberK (1985). ‘Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity’, American Journal of Occupational Therapy39(6): 386–91.
27.
MobergE (1958). ‘Objective methods for determining the functional value of sensibility in the hand’, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery40-B(3): 454–76.
28.
NgCL, HoDD, and ChowSP (1999). ‘The Moberg pickup test: results of testing with a standard protocol’, Journal of Hand Therapy12(4): 309–12.
29.
O'NeillG (1995). ‘The development of a standardised assessment of hand function’, British Journal of Occupational Therapy58(11): 477–80.
30.
Oxford GriceK, VogelKA, LeV, MitchellA, MunizS, and VollmerMA (2003). ‘Adult norms for a commercially available Nine Hole Peg Test for finger dexterity’, American Journal of Occupational Therapy57(5): 570–73.
31.
PollockN (1993). ‘Client-centred assessment’, American Journal of Occupational Therapy47(4): 298–301.
32.
RourkeBP, YanniDW, MacDonaldGW, and YoungGC (1973). ‘Neuropsychological significance of lateralized deficits on the Grooved Pegboard test for older children with learning disabilities’, Journal Consulting and Clinical Psychology41(1): 128–34.
33.
RudmanD, and HannahS (1998). ‘An instrument evaluation framework: description and application to assessments of hand function’, Journal of Hand Therapy11(4): 266–77.
34.
SmithHB (1973) ‘Smith hand function evaluation’, American Journal of Occupational Therapy (27)5: 244–51.
35.
SollermanC, and EjeskarA (1995). ‘Sollerman hand function test. A standardised method and its use in tetraplegic patients’, Scandanavian Journal Plastic Reconstructive Surgury and Hand Surgery29(2) 167–76.
36.
SteinC, and YerxaEJ (1990). ‘A test of fine finger dexterity’, American Journal of Occupational Therapy44(6): 499–504.
37.
SternEB (1992). ‘Stability of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test across three test sessions’, American Journal of Occupational Therapy46(7): 647–49.
van LankveldW, van't Pad BoschP, BakkerJ, TerwindtS, FranssenM, and van RielP (1996). ‘Sequential occupational dexterity assessment (SODA): a new test to measure hand disability’, Journal of Hand Therapy9(1): 27–32.
40.
van LankveldWG, GraffMJ, and van ‘t Pad BoschPJ (1999). ‘The Short Version of the Sequential Occupational Dexterity Assessment based on individual tasks’ sensitivity to change’, Arthritis Care Research12(6): 417–24.
41.
van de Ven-StevensL, and Corstens-MignotM (2004a). ‘SEAH, deel 2: instrumenten op functieniveau. Ontwikkeling ‘Standaard Ergotherapie Assessment bij Handfunctiestoornissen’, Ned Tijdschr Ergotherapie32(2): 56–63.
42.
van de Ven-StevensL, and Corstens-MignotM (2004b). ‘SEAH, deel 3: stand van zaken. Ontwikkeling ‘Standaard Ergotherapie Assessment bij Handfunctiestoornissen’, Ned Tijdschr Ergotherapie32(3): 104–114.
43.
WattsAM, GreenstockM, and ColeRP (1998). ‘Outcome following the rehabilitation of hand trauma patients. The importance of a subjective functional assessment’, Journal of Hand Surgery23-B(4):485–89.
44.
WHO (2001). ICF: International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health, World Health Organization, Geneva.
