科贝特目标硬币测试:可靠性、标准相关有效性和常模数据。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
{"title":"科贝特目标硬币测试:可靠性、标准相关有效性和常模数据。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jht.2023.10.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study Design</h3><p>Clinical measurement.</p></div><div><h3>Background</h3><p>Many daily living tasks require in-hand manipulation (IHM). There is a gap in standardized assessment tools for measuring IHM. The Corbett Targeted Coin Test (CTCT) was designed to allow measurement of that fine motor skill.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>1) To evaluate the interrater, test-retest reliability, and validity of the CTCT, and 2) to establish adult norms for the CTCT.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Reliability and Validity – 30 participants (25 females, age range 21–45) were assessed with the Nine-Hole Peg test and CTCT consecutively by three researchers, then re-evaluated one week later on the CTCT; Reliability was determined using intraclass correlation (ICC<sub>2,k</sub>) between tests and across testers; Criterion-related validity was determined by comparing scores from nine-hole test and CTCT across testers using ICC<sub>2,k</sub>. Normative – 190 participants (147 females, age range 20–80) were assessed with the CTCT; mean and standard deviation for participants’ scores were calculated by age groups and gender.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Test-retest reliability: poor for the right hand (ICCs = −0.29 to 0.45), and poor-moderate for the left hand (ICCs = 0.17–0.56). Inter-rater reliability ranged from moderate to excellent (ICCs = 0.60–0.80). The agreement between CTCT scores and Nine-Hole Peg test was poor for the right (ICC = 0.02; 95% CI: [−0.06, 0.14]) and left hands (ICC = 0.06; 95% CI: [−0.08, 0.28]). CTCT normative data: 41–50 age group demonstrated the highest performance while the 71–80 age group demonstrated the lowest performance. Scores between genders were similar.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>The poor test-retest reliability of CTCT was probably due to practice effect, while interrater reliability indicated that the test can be administered by different testers without compromising the results. The poor validity between tools proves their different constructs.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Use of the CTCT may add another dimension to assessment of dexterity and fine motor skills, specifically, in-hand manipulation, but needs further research on test-retest reliability.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54814,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand Therapy","volume":"37 3","pages":"Pages 371-377"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Corbett Targeted Coin Test: Reliability, criterion related validity, and normative data\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jht.2023.10.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Study Design</h3><p>Clinical measurement.</p></div><div><h3>Background</h3><p>Many daily living tasks require in-hand manipulation (IHM). There is a gap in standardized assessment tools for measuring IHM. The Corbett Targeted Coin Test (CTCT) was designed to allow measurement of that fine motor skill.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>1) To evaluate the interrater, test-retest reliability, and validity of the CTCT, and 2) to establish adult norms for the CTCT.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Reliability and Validity – 30 participants (25 females, age range 21–45) were assessed with the Nine-Hole Peg test and CTCT consecutively by three researchers, then re-evaluated one week later on the CTCT; Reliability was determined using intraclass correlation (ICC<sub>2,k</sub>) between tests and across testers; Criterion-related validity was determined by comparing scores from nine-hole test and CTCT across testers using ICC<sub>2,k</sub>. Normative – 190 participants (147 females, age range 20–80) were assessed with the CTCT; mean and standard deviation for participants’ scores were calculated by age groups and gender.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Test-retest reliability: poor for the right hand (ICCs = −0.29 to 0.45), and poor-moderate for the left hand (ICCs = 0.17–0.56). Inter-rater reliability ranged from moderate to excellent (ICCs = 0.60–0.80). The agreement between CTCT scores and Nine-Hole Peg test was poor for the right (ICC = 0.02; 95% CI: [−0.06, 0.14]) and left hands (ICC = 0.06; 95% CI: [−0.08, 0.28]). CTCT normative data: 41–50 age group demonstrated the highest performance while the 71–80 age group demonstrated the lowest performance. Scores between genders were similar.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>The poor test-retest reliability of CTCT was probably due to practice effect, while interrater reliability indicated that the test can be administered by different testers without compromising the results. The poor validity between tools proves their different constructs.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Use of the CTCT may add another dimension to assessment of dexterity and fine motor skills, specifically, in-hand manipulation, but needs further research on test-retest reliability.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54814,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hand Therapy\",\"volume\":\"37 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 371-377\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hand Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0894113023001655\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0894113023001655","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计临床测量:许多日常生活任务都需要手部操作(IHM)。目前还没有标准化的评估工具来测量 IHM。目的:1)评估CTCT的互测、重测可靠性和有效性;2)建立CTCT的成人标准:信度和效度--由三名研究人员连续对 30 名参与者(25 名女性,年龄在 21-45 岁之间)进行九孔钉球测试和 CTCT 评估,然后在一周后对 CTCT 进行重新评估;信度通过测试之间和测试者之间的类内相关性 (ICC2,k) 来确定;标准相关效度通过比较不同测试者的九孔钉球测试和 CTCT 分数 (ICC2,k) 来确定。标准--190 名参与者(147 名女性,年龄在 20-80 岁之间)接受了 CTCT 评估;按年龄组和性别计算了参与者得分的平均值和标准偏差:重测可靠性:右手较差(ICCs = -0.29-0.45),左手为中差(ICCs = 0.17-0.56)。评分者之间的可靠性从中等到优秀不等(ICCs = 0.60-0.80)。CTCT 评分与九孔 Peg 测试之间的一致性在右手(ICC = 0.02;95% CI:[-0.06, 0.14])和左手(ICC = 0.06;95% CI:[-0.08, 0.28])较差。CTCT 常模数据:41-50 岁年龄组的表现最高,而 71-80 岁年龄组的表现最低。性别间得分相似:CTCT 的重测信度较差可能是由于练习效应造成的,而测试者之间的信度则表明该测试可由不同的测试者进行而不会影响测试结果。工具之间的效度较差证明了它们的不同结构:使用 CTCT 可以为灵巧性和精细运动技能(尤其是手部操作)的评估增加一个新的维度,但还需要进一步研究测试间可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Corbett Targeted Coin Test: Reliability, criterion related validity, and normative data

Study Design

Clinical measurement.

Background

Many daily living tasks require in-hand manipulation (IHM). There is a gap in standardized assessment tools for measuring IHM. The Corbett Targeted Coin Test (CTCT) was designed to allow measurement of that fine motor skill.

Purpose

1) To evaluate the interrater, test-retest reliability, and validity of the CTCT, and 2) to establish adult norms for the CTCT.

Methods

Reliability and Validity – 30 participants (25 females, age range 21–45) were assessed with the Nine-Hole Peg test and CTCT consecutively by three researchers, then re-evaluated one week later on the CTCT; Reliability was determined using intraclass correlation (ICC2,k) between tests and across testers; Criterion-related validity was determined by comparing scores from nine-hole test and CTCT across testers using ICC2,k. Normative – 190 participants (147 females, age range 20–80) were assessed with the CTCT; mean and standard deviation for participants’ scores were calculated by age groups and gender.

Results

Test-retest reliability: poor for the right hand (ICCs = −0.29 to 0.45), and poor-moderate for the left hand (ICCs = 0.17–0.56). Inter-rater reliability ranged from moderate to excellent (ICCs = 0.60–0.80). The agreement between CTCT scores and Nine-Hole Peg test was poor for the right (ICC = 0.02; 95% CI: [−0.06, 0.14]) and left hands (ICC = 0.06; 95% CI: [−0.08, 0.28]). CTCT normative data: 41–50 age group demonstrated the highest performance while the 71–80 age group demonstrated the lowest performance. Scores between genders were similar.

Discussion

The poor test-retest reliability of CTCT was probably due to practice effect, while interrater reliability indicated that the test can be administered by different testers without compromising the results. The poor validity between tools proves their different constructs.

Conclusions

Use of the CTCT may add another dimension to assessment of dexterity and fine motor skills, specifically, in-hand manipulation, but needs further research on test-retest reliability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Hand Therapy
Journal of Hand Therapy 医学-外科
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
65
审稿时长
19.2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Hand Therapy is designed for hand therapists, occupational and physical therapists, and other hand specialists involved in the rehabilitation of disabling hand problems. The Journal functions as a source of education and information by publishing scientific and clinical articles. Regular features include original reports, clinical reviews, case studies, editorials, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信