Umeå University's logo

umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Test-retest reliability of the twenty-five-hole peg test in patients who had a stroke
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Section of Physiotherapy.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Section of Physiotherapy.
2019 (English)In: BMJ Open, E-ISSN 2044-6055, Vol. 9, no 12, article id e032560Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objectives: Weaknesses of the nine-hole peg test include high floor effects and a result that might be difficult to interpret. In the twenty-five-hole peg test (TFHPT), the larger number of available pegs allows for the straightforward counting of the number of pegs inserted as the result. The TFHPT provides a comprehensible result and low floor effects. The objective was to assess the test-retest reliability of the TFHPT when testing persons with stroke. A particular focus was placed on the absolute reliability, as quantified by the smallest real difference (SRD). Complementary aims were to investigate possible implications for how the TFHPT should be used and for how the SRD of the TFHPT performance should be expressed.

Design: This study employed a test-retest design including three trials. The pause between trials was approximately 10-120 s.

Participants, setting and outcome measure: Thirty-one participants who had suffered a stroke were recruited from a group designated for constraint-induced movement therapy at outpatient clinics. The TFHPT result was expressed as the number of pegs inserted.

Methods: Absolute reliability was quantified by the SRD, including random and systematic error for a single trial, SRD2.1, and for an average of three trials, SRD2.3. For the SRD measures, the corresponding SRD percentage (SRD%) measure was also reported.

Results: The differences in the number of pegs necessary to detect a change in the TFHPT for SRD2.1 and SRD2.3 were 4.0 and 2.3, respectively. The corresponding SRD% values for SRD2.1 and SRD2.3 were 36.5% and 21.3%, respectively.

Conclusions: The smallest change that can be detected in the TFHPT should be just above two pegs for a test procedure including an average of three trials. The use of an average of three trials compared with a single trial substantially reduces the measurement error.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 2019. Vol. 9, no 12, article id e032560
National Category
Other Medical Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-168799DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032560ISI: 000512773400180PubMedID: 31831545Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85076394171OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-168799DiVA, id: diva2:1413426
Available from: 2020-03-10 Created: 2020-03-10 Last updated: 2023-08-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(518 kB)239 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 518 kBChecksum SHA-512
6e9d7bb34d654341061c2a190907c5d14a2d881d5dcc130f8cb335e844ee8620a9a5d5d774c41795600935f0b2063a662703e02c2c732c75c6ff2bf2b958b384
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Hedlund, MattiasLindström, Britta

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hedlund, MattiasLindström, Britta
By organisation
Section of Physiotherapy
In the same journal
BMJ Open
Other Medical Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 239 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 435 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf