A note on a modified Purdue Pegboard.

Bass, Bernard M.; Stucki, Ralph E.

doi:10.1037/h0062086

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Movements using chopsticks or tweezers are different from the Pegboard movement from the point of view that a working point is located outside of the body. The Purdue Pegboard has been widely used as a screening procedure for workers in the handicraft industry and to evaluate proficiency in work operation such as assembling, packing, and operating specific machines (Tiffin & Asher, 1948;Bass & Stucki, 1951) in addition to practice of rehabilitation movements for some disorders and an evaluation of brain damage. Moving Beans with Tweezers is used to evaluate the activity of elderly persons and patients in rehabilitation settings (Shigematsu, et al, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Examination of Practice and Laterality Effects on the Purdue Pegboard and Moving Beans with Tweezers

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to examine the relation of practice or learning and laterality on the Purdue Pegboard and the Moving Beans with Tweezers test. The subjects were 30 right-handed, healthy young male adults (age: M = 21.1, SD = 1.9 yr.). The subjects performed both tests five times with each hand. A two-way analysis of variance (hand x trial) for scores on the Purdue Pegboard showed that Trial 1 had a significantly lower mean than Trials 4 and 5 with the dominant hand, and scores on Trials 1 and 3 were lower than that on Trial 5 for the nondominant hand. For the Moving Beans with Tweezers test, Trial 1 had a significantly lower score than Trial 5 with the nondominant hand. The dominant hand produced significantly higher values on all trials of both tests. Intraclass correlation coefficients of Trials 2 and 3 were high, and means were significantly higher for the dominant hand. A correlation between other tests was not high (r = .37-.46) for both hands. All correlations among five trials on both tests were significant and high (Purdue Pegboard-Dominant: average r =.72, [r] = .60-.80, Purdue Pegboard-Nondominant: average r = .59, [r] = .43-.76), (Moving Beans-Dominant: average r = .74, [r] = .57-.81, Moving Beans-Nondominant: average r =.71, [r] = .55-.87). Correlations among five trials for the ratio of dominant:nondominant hand on both tests were significant and moderate (Moving Beans: average r = .28, [r] = .08-.57, Purdue Pegboard: average r = .41, [r] = .19.56). Performance with the dominant hand is superior to that of the nondominant hand on both tests. Practice effects are found for both tests across five trials. The Moving Beans with Tweezers test also showed laterality of practice effects. The two tests may measure different abilities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Examination of Practice and Laterality Effects on the Purdue Pegboard and Moving Beans with Tweezers

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The test-retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard has been established as being lower for persons without disabilities (Bass & Stucki, 1951;Buddenberg & Davis, 2000;Desrosiers, Bravo, & Dutil, 1995;Reddon, Gill, Gauk, & Maerz, 1988;Tiffin, 1968;Tiffin & Asher, 1948) than for persons with disabilities, such as rheumatoid arthritis and mental retardation (Guarnaccia, Daniels, & Sefick, 1975;Jones et al, 1991), when using a one-trial administration. In addition, Tiffin and Asher (1948) reported higher test-retest reliability on the Purdue Pegboard using three-trial administration (.82-.91) than a one-trial administration (.60-.76) for persons without disabilities.…”

Section: Brief Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The test-retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard using one-trial administration has been reported as ranging from .37 to .92 in healthy populations (Bass & Stucki, 1951;Buddenberg & Davis, 2000;Desrosiers et al, 1995;Reddon et al, 1988;Tiffin, 1968;Tiffin & Asher, 1948;Wilson, Iacoviello, Wilson, & Risucci, 1982), .73 to .87 in persons with rheumatoid arthritis (Jones et al, 1991), and .71 to .96 in persons with mental retardation (Guarnaccia et al, 1975). The test-retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard using three-trial administration has been reported as ranging from .82 to .89 in healthy persons (Buddenberg & Davis, 2000).…”

Section: Test-retest Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Test–Retest Reliability of the Purdue Pegboard for Persons With Multiple Sclerosis

Gallus

Mathiowetz

2003

The American Journal of Occupational Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study suggests that the one-trial administration of the Purdue Pegboard is a sufficiently reliable assessment to use with persons with multiple sclerosis. Findings further suggest that for a person with multiple sclerosis, any changes in Purdue Pegboard scores using one-trial administration may reflect actual change in that person's dexterity, as no practice effect was demonstrated in this study.

show abstract

“…Since the Purdue Pegboard Test was developed in 1948, seven test-retest studies have been reported (Bass & Stucki, 1951;Desrosiers, Bravo, & Dutil, 1995;Jones et al, 1991;Lam, Chan, & Thorpe, 1988;Reddon, Gill, Gauk, & Maerz, 1988;Sterne, 1969;Tiffin, 1968). Of these, only three have examined the reliability of the onetrial administration when the test and retest were separated by time (Desrosiers et al, 1995;Reddon et al, 1988;Tiffin, 1968), and none has assessed the reliability of the three-trial administration procedures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%