Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Assessing Dexterity Function: A Comparison of Two Alternatives for the NIH Toolbox
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Assessing Dexterity Function: A Comparison of Two Alternatives for the NIH Toolbox
Do you wish to request the book?
Assessing Dexterity Function: A Comparison of Two Alternatives for the NIH Toolbox
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Assessing Dexterity Function: A Comparison of Two Alternatives for the NIH Toolbox
2011
Overview
Clinical measurement.
Manual dexterity is an important aspect of motor function across the age span.
To identify a single measure of manual dexterity for inclusion in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function.
A total of 340 subjects participated in our study. Two alternatives, Rolyan
® 9-Hole Peg Test (9-HPT) and Grooved Pegboard test, were compared by assessing their score range across age groups (3–85
yr) and their test–retest reliability, concurrent, and known groups validity.
The 9-HPT was a simple, efficient, and low-cost measure of manual dexterity appropriate for administration across the age range. Test–retest reliability coefficients were 0.95 and 0.92 for right and left hands, respectively. The 9-HPT correlated with Bruininks-Oseretsky Test (BOT) of Motor Proficiency, dexterity subscale, at −0.87 to −0.89 and with Purdue Pegboard at −0.74 to −0.75. The Grooved Pegboard had good test–retest reliability (0.91 and 0.85 for right and left hands, respectively). The Grooved Pegboard correlated with BOT at −0.50 to −0.63 and with Purdue Pegboard at −0.73 to −0.78. However, the Grooved Pegboard required longer administration time and was challenging for the youngest children and oldest adults.
Based on its feasibility and measurement properties, the 9-HPT was recommended for inclusion in the motor battery of the NIH Toolbox.
NA.
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,Elsevier Limited
Subject
