Advertisement

Performance-based outcome measures of dexterity and hand function in person with hands and wrist injuries: A scoping review of measured constructs

Published:April 18, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2021.04.017

      Highlights

      • Majority of the outcome measures used speed as a criterion for performance.
      • Newer outcome measures increasingly focus on representing daily activities and qualitative aspect of performance.
      • No outcome measure included in this review covered all the theoretical aspects and scope of dexterity and hand function.
      • As the terms: hand function and dexterity are not clearly defined, clinicians and researchers need to ensure that the outcome measure they select reflects the attribute they want to measure.

      Abstract

      Background

      Dexterity impairments are common and disabling. Currently, there is no consensus on an operational definition to measure dexterity.

      Purpose

      This review aims to provide an overview of constructs measured by performance-based outcome measures of dexterity and hand function (PBOMD) validated for use in persons with musculoskeletal hand and wrist conditions.

      Study Design

      Scoping review, with qualitative content analysis.

      Methods

      MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO were searched from inception until November 2019. Three reviewers identified studies investigating the psychometric properties of PBOMD in persons with hand and wrist conditions. Original articles and manuals of validated PBOMD were obtained. Reviewers independently extracted and performed a content analysis of constructs comparing the theoretical concepts of dexterity and function.

      Results

      Twenty PBOMD were identified. PBOMD featured 1-57 tasks and 1-8 potential grasps patterns per tool. Description of the constructs measured indicated overlap between dexterity and hand function. In newer tools, there was a greater representation of daily activities to include domains like self-care and domestic life; and measurement of qualitative aspects of performance. Concurrently, there was less focus on mobility. The majority of identified tools (70%) used speed as the criterion evaluation of performance. None of the PBOMD evaluated dexterity associated with leisure activities or modern technologies like smartphones, nor measured the ability to adapt to changing demands when completing tasks.

      Conclusions

      Hand function and dexterity are imprecisely defined and operationalized in PBOMD. Dexterity is a complex construct that current PBOMD incompletely captures. PBOMD often quantified as the speed of movement, ignoring other important aspects like accommodating environmental changes during task performance. Clinicians should consider tasks included in PBOMD, the quantification method, and each PBOMD's limitations when choosing PBOMD.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Hand Therapy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Bobos P.
        • Lalone E.A.
        • Grewal R.
        • MacDermid J.C.
        Recovery, age, and gender effects on hand dexterity after a distal radius fracture. A 1-year prospective cohort study.
        J Hand Ther. 2018; 31: 465-471https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2017.08.002
        • Nazari G.
        • Shah N.
        • MacDermid J.C.
        • Woodhouse L.
        The impact of sensory, motor and pain impairments on patient- reported and performance based function in carpal tunnel syndrome.
        Open Orthop J. 2017; 11: 1258-1267https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001711011258
        • Bizier C.
        Statistics Canada. Dexterity Disabilities among Canadians Aged 15 Years and Older, 2012..
        2016 (Available at: http://www.deslibris.ca/ID/10062046. Accessed February 1, 2018)
        • Public Health England
        Physical Inactivity Levels in Adults Aged 40 to 60 in England 2015 to 2016.
        Public Health England, 2017 (Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/physical-inactivity-levels-in-adults-aged-40-to-60-in-england/physical-inactivity-levels-in-adults-aged-40-to-60-in-england-2015-to-2016. Accessed April 22, 2019)
        • Taylor D.M.
        Americans With Disabilities: 2014. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration.
        United States Census Bureau, 2018: 32 (Available at: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/p70-152.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2019)
        • World Health Organization
        Musculoskeletal conditions. Published.
        2018 (Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/musculoskeletal-conditions. Accessed April 22, 2019)
        • Koch M.W.
        • Murray T.J.
        • Fisk J.
        • et al.
        Hand dexterity and direct disease related cost in multiple sclerosis.
        J Neurol Sci. 2014; 341: 51-54https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2014.03.047
        • Schoneveld K.
        • Wittink H.
        • Takken T.
        Clinimetric evaluation of measurement tools used in hand therapy to assess activity and participation.
        J Hand Ther. 2009; 22: 221-236https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2008.11.005
        • Ven-Stevens L.
        • Graff M.
        • Selles R.
        • et al.
        Instruments for assessment of impairments and activity limitations in patients with hand conditions: A European Delphi study.
        J Rehabil Med. 2015; 47: 948-956https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2015
        • Yancosek K.E.
        • Howell D.
        A narrative review of dexterity assessments.
        J Hand Ther. 2009; 22: 258-270https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2008.11.004
        • Colquhoun H.L.
        • Lamontagne M.-E.
        • Duncan E.A.
        • Fiander M.
        • Champagne C.
        • Grimshaw J.M.
        A systematic review of interventions to increase the use of standardized outcome measures by rehabilitation professionals.
        Clin Rehabil. 2017; 31: 299-309https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215516644309
        • Porter M.E.
        • Larsson S.
        • Lee T.H.
        Standardizing patient outcomes measurement.
        Engl J Med. 2016; 374: 504-506https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1511701
        • van de Ven-Stevens L.A.
        • Munneke M.
        • Terwee C.B.
        • Spauwen P.H.
        • van der Linde H.
        Clinimetric properties of instruments to assess activities in patients with hand injury: a systematic review of the literature.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009; 90: 151-169https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2008.06.024
        • Terwee C., A.C.
        • Prinsen C.
        • Chiarotto A.
        • et al.
        COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study.
        Qual Life Res. 2018; 27https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0
      1. World Health Organization. Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health: ICF. Published online 2002.

        • Vergara M.
        • Sancho-Bru J.L.
        • Gracia-Ibáñez V.
        • Pérez-González A.
        An introductory study of common grasps used by adults during performance of activities of daily living.
        J Hand Ther. 2014; 27: 225-234https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2014.04.002
        • Yong J.
        • MacDermid J.C.
        • Packham T.
        Defining dexterity—Untangling the discourse in clinical practice.
        J Hand Ther. 2020; (Published online)S0894113019303515https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2019.11.001
        • Bernstein N.A.
        On Dexterity and its Development.
        (NetLibrary, Inc)in: Latash M.L. Turvey M.T. Bernshteĭn N.A. Dexterity and Its Development. Resources for ecological psychology. L. Erlbaum Associates, 1996 (Available at: www.netLibrary.com/urlapi.asp?action=summary&v=1&bookid=24293. Accessed March 26, 2019)
        • Poirier F.
        Dexterity as a valid measure of hand function.
        Occup Ther Health Care. 1988; 4: 69-83https://doi.org/10.1080/J003v04n03_07
        • Drisko J.W.
        • Maschi T.
        Content Analysis.
        Oxford University Press, 2015
        • Dobson F.
        • Hinman R.S.
        • Hall M.
        • Terwee C.B.
        • Roos E.M.
        • Bennell K.L.
        Measurement properties of performance-based measures to assess physical function in hip and knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review.
        Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012; 20: 1548-1562https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2012.08.015
        • Terwee C.B.
        • Jansma E.P.
        • Riphagen I.I.
        • Vet H.C.W.de
        Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments.
        Qual Life Res. 2009; 18: 1115-1123https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5
        • Rathbone J.
        • Carter M.
        • Hoffmann T.
        • Glasziou P.
        Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module.
        Syst Rev. 2015; 4https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-6
      2. Covidence Systematic Review Software. Veritas Health Innovation; Melbourne, Australia. Available at www.covidence.org.

      3. Microsoft Excel for Office 365. Microsoft; 2019.

        • Cieza A.
        • Fayed N.
        • Bickenbach J.
        • Prodinger B.
        Refinements of the ICF linking rules to strengthen their potential for establishing comparability of health information.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2019; 41: 574-583https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2016.1145258
        • Metcalf C.
        • Adams J.
        • Burridge J.
        • Yule V.
        • Chappell P.
        A review of clinical upper limb assessments within the framework of the WHO ICF.
        Musculoskelet Care. 2007; 5: 160-173https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.108
        • Poole J.L.
        Measures of hand function: Arthritis Hand Function Test (AHFT), Australian Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN), Cochin Hand Function Scale, Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA), Grip Ability Test (GAT), Jebsen Hand Function Test (JHFT), and Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ).
        Arthritis Care Res. 2011; 63: S189-S199https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20631
        • Van De Ven-Stevens L.
        • Munneke M.
        • Spauwen P.H.
        • Van Der Linde H.
        Assessment of activities in patients with hand injury: a review of instruments in use.
        Br J Hand Ther. 2007; 12: 4-14https://doi.org/10.1177/175899830701200101
        • Wang S.
        • Hsu C.J.
        • Trent L.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of Performance-based outcome measures for the upper limb: a comprehensive narrative review.
        PM&R. 2018; 10 (e3): 951-962https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.02.008
        • 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. 2003; 20: 97
        • Lafayette Instrument Company Inc
        Minnesota Manual Dexterity Test Examiner Manual. MAN185 Model 32023.
        2017 (lafayette instruments)
        • Lafayette Instrument Company Inc
        Complete Minnesota Dexterity Test Examiner Manual. MAN186, Model 32023A.
        2015 (lafayette instruments)
        • Tiffin J.
        Purdue Pegboard Examiner Manual.
        3rd ed. Science research associates, 1968
        • Berger Y.
        Does the crawford small parts dexterity test require new norms?.
        PerceptMotSkills. 1985; 60: 948-950https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1985.60.3.948
        • Osborne R.T.
        • Sanders W.B.
        The Crawford small parts dexterity test as a time-limit test.
        Personnel Psychology. 1956; (Published online): 177-180https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1956.tb01061.x
        • Moberg E.
        • Moberg E.
        Objective methods for determining the functional value of sensibility in the hand.
        J Bone Joint Surg, Br. 1958; 40-b: 454-476https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.40B3.454
        • Dellon A.L.
        • Dellon A.L.
        Evaluation of Sensibility and Re-Education of.Pdf.
        4th ed. The Dellon Institutes for Pheripheral Nerve Surgery LLC, 2015
        • Ng C.L.
        • Ho D.D.
        • Chow S.P.
        The Moberg pickup test: results of testing with a standard protocol.
        J Hand Ther. 1999; 12: 309-312https://doi.org/10.1016/S0894-1130(99)80069-6
        • Jebsen R.H.
        • Taylor N.
        • Trieschmann R.B.
        • Trotter M.J.
        • Howard L.A.
        An objective and standardized test of hand function.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1969; 50: 311-319
        • Kellor M.
        • Frost J.
        • Silberberg N.
        • Iversen I.
        • Cummings R.
        Norms for clinical use. Hand strength and dexterity.
        Am J Occup Ther. 1971; 25: 77-83
        • Mathiowetz V.
        • Weber K.
        • Kashman N.
        • Volland G.
        Adult norms for the nine hole peg test of finger dexterity.
        Occup Ther J Res. 1985; 5: 24-38https://doi.org/10.1177/153944928500500102
        • Smith H.
        Smith hand function evaluation.
        Am J Occup Ther. 1973; 27: 244-251
        • Botterbusch K.
        A Comparison of Commerical Vocational Evaluation Systems (Second Edition).
        Wisconsin University-Stout, Stout Vocational Rehabilitation Institute, 1982: 93-97 (Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED273803.pdf. Accessed May 21, 2019)
        • Christopherson B.B.
        • Hayes P.
        VALPAR Compoent Work Samples Uses in Allied Health.
        2nd ed. VALPAR international Corporation, 2006
        • Cromwell F.
        box and block test.
        Occupational Therapist's Manual for Basic Skill Assessment; Primary Prevocational Evaluation. Fair Oaks Printing, 1976: 29-30
        • Mathiowetz V.
        • Volland G.
        • Kashman N.
        • Weber K.
        Adult norms for the box and block test of manual dexterity.
        Am J Occup Ther. 1985; 39: 386-391https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.39.6.386
        • MacBain K.P.
        Assessment of function in the rheumatoid hand.
        Can J Occup Ther. 1970; 37: 95-103https://doi.org/10.1177/000841747003700301
        • Backman C.
        • Mackie H.
        • Harris J.
        Arthritis hand function test: development of a standardized assessment tool.
        Occup Ther J Res. 1991; 11: 245-256https://doi.org/10.1177/153944929101100405
        • Backman C.
        • Mackie H.
        Arthritis hand function test: Inter-rater reliability among self-trained raters.
        Arthritis Care Res. 1995; 8: 10-15https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1790080105
        • Backman C.
        • Mackie H.
        Reliability and validity of the arthritis hand function test in adults with osteoarthritis.
        Occup Ther J Res. 1997; 17: 55-66https://doi.org/10.1177/153944929701700104
        • Pincus T.
        • Brooks R.
        • Callahan L.
        Reliability of grip strength, walking time and button test performed according to a standard protocol.
        J Rheumatol. 1991; 18: 997-1000
        • Sollerman C.
        • Ejeskar A.
        Sollerman hand function test. A standardised method and its use in tetraplegic patients.
        J Plastic. 1995; 29: 167-176
        • Dellhag B.
        • Bjelle A.
        A grip ability test for use in rheumatology practice.
        J Rheumatol. 1995; 22: 1559-1565
        • van Lankveld W.
        • van't Pad Bosch P.
        • Bakker J.
        • Terwindt S.
        • Franssen M.
        • van Riel P.
        Sequential Occupational Dexterity Assessment (SODA): a new test to measure hand disability.
        J Hand Ther. 1996; 9: 27-32https://doi.org/10.1016/S0894-1130(96)80008-1
      4. Gable C., Xenard J., Makiela E., Chau N. Evaluation fonctionnelle de la main. Bilan 400 points et tests chiffrés. Annales de Réadaptation et de Médecine Physique. 1997;40(2):95-101. doi:10.1016/S0168-6054(97)83377-6.

        • Gable C.
        • Kandel M.
        • Moureau F.
        • Beer L.
        • Chau N.
        • Paysant J.
        Étude de reproductibilité de la cotation du « Bilan 400 points », une mesure de capacité fonctionnelle de la main.
        Chirurgie de la Main. 2012; 31: 76-82https://doi.org/10.1016/j.main.2012.01.008
        • Turgeon T.R.
        • MacDermid J.C.
        • Roth J.H.
        Reliability of the NK dexterity board.
        J Hand Ther. 1999; 12: 7-15https://doi.org/10.1016/S0894-1130(99)80028-3
        • van Lankveld W.G.J.
        • Graff M.J.L.
        • van't Pad Bosch P.J.I.
        The short version of the sequential occupational dexterity assessment based on individual tasks’ sensitivity to change.
        Arthritis Care Res. 1999; 12: 417-424
        • Aaron D.H.
        • Jansen C.W.S.
        Development of the Functional Dexterity Test (FDT): construction, validity, reliability, and normative data.
        J Hand Ther. 2003; 16: 12-21https://doi.org/10.1016/S0894-1130(03)80019-4
        • Packham T.L.
        • Landman E.C.M.
        • Muhic A.
        • Hebert A.J.
        • Ball P.D.
        Measurement properties of the MacHANd Performance Assessment: A pilot study.
        Can J Occup Ther. 2012; 79: 303-308https://doi.org/10.2182/cjot.2011.79.5.6
        • Packham T.
        • Kooner A.
        • Landman E.
        • Muhic A.
        • Ball P.
        MacHANd Performance Assessment (MPA) Instructions and Scoring Manual.
        McMaster University, 2012
        • Fleishman E.A.
        • Hempel W.E.
        A factor analysis of dexterity tests.
        Personnel Psychology. 1954; 7: 15-32https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1954.tb02254.x
        • Landsmeer J.M.F.
        Power grip and precision handling.
        Ann Rheum Dis. 1962; 21: 164-170https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.21.2.164
      5. Yong J. Exploring the Perceptions, Practices and Constructs surrounding the Measurement of Dexterity in the Rehabilitation of Persons with Hand and Wrist Injuries. Published online 2019. Accessed October 18, 2020. Available at: https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/handle/11375/24888.

        • Gonzalez V.
        • Rowson J.
        • Yoxall A.
        Analyzing finger interdependencies during the Purdue Pegboard Test and comparative activities of daily living.
        J Hand Ther. 2017; 30: 80-88https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2016.04.002
        • Gonzalez V.
        • Rowson J.
        • Yoxall A.
        Research. development of the variable dexterity test: construction, reliability and validity.
        Int J Ther Rehabil. 2015; 22: 174-180https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2015.22.4.174
        • Jarus T.
        • Poremba R.
        Hand function evaluation: a factor analysis study.
        AmJOccupTher. 1993; 47: 439-443https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.47.5.439
        • Krohne K.
        • Torres S.
        • Slettebø Å.
        • Bergland A.
        Everyday uses of standardized test information in a geriatric setting: a qualitative study exploring occupational therapist and physiotherapist test administrators’ justifications.
        BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14: 72https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-72
        • Tyler H.
        • Adams J.
        • Ellis B.
        What can handgrip strength tell the therapist about hand function?.
        Br J Hand Ther. 2005; 10: 4-9https://doi.org/10.1177/175899830501000101
        • Schwartz D.A.
        What can handgrip strength tell the therapist about hand function?.
        J Hand Ther. 2005; 18: 457https://doi.org/10.1197/j.jht.2005.09.003
        • Gallivan J.P.
        • Chapman C.S.
        • Wolpert D.M.
        • Flanagan J.R.
        Decision-making in sensorimotor control.
        Nat Rev Neurosci. 2018; 19: 519-534https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-018-0045-9
        • Andreasson I.
        • Kjellby-Wendt G.
        • Fagevik-Olsén M.
        • Karlsson J.
        • Carlsson G.
        Life has become troublesome – my wrist bothers me around the clock: an interview study relating to daily life with a malunited distal radius fracture.
        Disabil Rehabili. 2019; (Published online January 29): 1-7https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1561954
        • Bisset L.
        • Beller E.
        • Jull G.
        • Brooks P.
        • Darnell R.
        • Vicenzino B.
        Mobilisation with movement and exercise, corticosteroid injection, or wait and see for tennis elbow: Randomised trial.
        BMJ: Br Med J. 2006; 333 (Allander B Bisset, Bot, Carlsson, Chiang, Drechsler, Haker, Hay, Kurppa, Matthews, Ranney, Scott, Smidt, Smidt, Smidt, Smidt, Stratford, Stratford, Stratford, Thurtle, Vicenzino, Walker-Bone, Yan, ed.): 939https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38961.584653.AE
        • Smeulders M.J.C.
        • Kreulen M.
        • Bos K.E.
        Fine motor assessment in chronic wrist pain: the role of adapted motor control.
        Clin Rehabil. 2001; 15: 133-141https://doi.org/10.1191/026921501672958566
        • Grice K.O.
        The use of occupation-based assessments and intervention in the hand therapy setting – A survey.
        J Hand Ther. 2015; 28: 300-306https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2015.01.005

      JHT Read for Credit

      Quiz: # 845

      Record your answers on the Return Answer Form found on the tear-out coupon at the back of this issue or to complete online and use a credit card, go to JHTReadforCredit.com. There is only one best answer for each question.
      • # 1.
        The design of the study is
        • a.
          retrospective cohort
        • b.
          a review of published literature on the topic
        • c.
          case series
        • d.
          RCTs
      • # 2.
        Experts agree that
        • a.
          the Moberg Pickup Test is the best test of manual dexterity
        • b.
          the Purdue Peg Board is the definitive test of manual dexterity
        • c.
          the 9 Hole Peg Test is the definitive test of manual dexterity
        • d.
          currently there is no consensus as to an operational definition to measure manual dexterity
      • # 3.
        The most common performance criterion was
        • a.
          patient evaluation of the task
        • b.
          difficulty of the task
        • c.
          speed of completion of the task
        • d.
          accuracy of the completed task
      • # 4.
        Smart phones and other modern-day technologies were
        • a.
          included in 45% of the PBOMDs
        • b.
          routinely absent from the PBOMDs
        • c.
          included in 75% of the PBMODs
        • d.
          felt by the authors to be inappropriate for inclusion of PBOMDs
      • # 5.
        The authors suggest that in assessing hand dexterity and function, clinicians should consider the scores of whatever PBOMDs are administered, but not take those scores as the sole determinant
        • a.
          true
        • b.
          false
      When submitting to the HTCC for re-certification, please batch your JHT RFC certificates in groups of 3 or more to get full credit.