A narrative review of dexterity assessments.

[1]  D. Maiden,et al.  An examination of the validity of the orrisby Manual Dexterity Test , 2010 .

[2]  N. Ashworth,et al.  Normative values and the effects of age, gender, and handedness on the Moberg Pick‐Up Test , 2007, Muscle & nerve.

[3]  Kurt P Spindler,et al.  How to Write a Systematic Review , 2007, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[4]  D. Man,et al.  The discriminative power of the Wolf motor function test in assessing upper extremity functions in persons with stroke. , 2006, International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation.

[5]  C. Häger-Ross,et al.  Hand function in Charcot Marie Tooth: test retest reliability of some measurements , 2006, Clinical rehabilitation.

[6]  J. Whitall,et al.  Psychometric properties of a modified Wolf Motor Function test for people with mild and moderate upper-extremity hemiparesis. , 2006, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[7]  E. Taub,et al.  The EXCITE Trial: Attributes of the Wolf Motor Function Test in Patients with Subacute Stroke , 2005, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[8]  P. J. Bryden,et al.  A new method of administering the Grooved Pegboard Test: Performance as a function of handedness and sex , 2005, Brain and Cognition.

[9]  T. Platz,et al.  Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study , 2005, Clinical rehabilitation.

[10]  Kimatha Oxford Grice,et al.  Adult norms for a commercially available Nine Hole Peg Test for finger dexterity. , 2003, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[11]  Christina Jerosch-Herold,et al.  A Study of the Relative Responsiveness of Five Sensibility Tests for Assessment of Recovery after Median Nerve Injury and Repair , 2003, Journal of hand surgery.

[12]  S. Wolf,et al.  Assessing Wolf Motor Function Test as Outcome Measure for Research in Patients After Stroke , 2001, Stroke.

[13]  E. Taub,et al.  The reliability of the wolf motor function test for assessing upper extremity function after stroke. , 2001, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[14]  L A Buddenberg,et al.  Test-retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard Test. , 2000, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[15]  W. van Lankveld,et al.  The Short Version of the Sequential Occupational Dexterity Assessment based on individual tasks' sensitivity to change. , 1999, Arthritis care and research : the official journal of the Arthritis Health Professions Association.

[16]  J. Krishnan,et al.  Correlation between objective and subjective measures of hand function in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. , 1999, Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists.

[17]  S. P. Chow,et al.  The Moberg pickup test: results of testing with a standard protocol. , 1999, Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists.

[18]  J. Greenhalgh,et al.  Reviewing and selecting outcome measures for use in routine practice. , 1998, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[19]  D Rudman,et al.  An instrument evaluation framework: description and application to assessments of hand function. , 1998, Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists.

[20]  J. Desrosiers,et al.  The Minnesota Manual Dexterity Test: Reliability, Validity and Reference Values Studies with Healthy Elderly People , 1997 .

[21]  Dominic A. Brandy,et al.  The O'Connor Tweezer Dexterity Test as a Screening Tool for Hiring Surgical Hair Restoration Assistants , 1995 .

[22]  R. Hébert,et al.  Validation of the Box and Block Test as a measure of dexterity of elderly people: reliability, validity, and norms studies. , 1994, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[23]  R M Ruff,et al.  Gender- and Age-Specific Changes in Motor Speed and Eye-Hand Coordination in Adults: Normative Values for the Finger Tapping and Grooved Pegboard Tests , 1993, Perceptual and motor skills.

[24]  Catherine L. Backman,et al.  Assessment of Hand Function: The Relationship between Pegboard Dexterity and Applied Dexterity , 1992 .

[25]  K. Lynch,et al.  Validity of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test in Predicting Activities of Daily Living , 1989 .

[26]  D. Goodkin,et al.  Upper extremity function in multiple sclerosis: improving assessment sensitivity with box-and-block and nine-hole peg tests. , 1988, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[27]  Yitzhak Berger.  Does the Crawford Small Parts Dexterity Test Require New Norms? , 1985 .

[28]  V. Mathiowetz,et al.  Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. , 1985, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[29]  V. Mathiowetz,et al.  Adult Norms for the Nine Hole Peg Test of Finger Dexterity , 1985 .

[30]  M G Wardle,et al.  Use of the Minnesota Rate of Manipulation Test for Disability Evaluation , 1982, Perceptual and motor skills.

[31]  M. Wardle,et al.  Use of a Test of Psychomotor Ability in an Expanded Role , 1981, Perceptual and motor skills.

[32]  Norman H. Hamm,et al.  Normative Data for the Purdue Pegboard on a Sample of Adult Candidates for Vocational Rehabilitation , 1980 .

[33]  N. Silberberg,et al.  Hand strength and dexterity. , 1971, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[34]  R. H. Jebsen,et al.  An objective and standardized test of hand function. , 1969, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[35]  Drussell Rd.  Relationship of Minnesota Rate of Manipulation Test with the industrial work performance of the adult cerebral palsied. , 1959 .

[36]  E. Moberg,et al.  Objective methods for determining the functional value of sensibility in the hand. , 1958, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[37]  J. Tiffin,et al.  The Purdue pegboard; norms and studies of reliability and validity. , 1948, The Journal of applied psychology.

[38]  Lynn R Surrey,et al.  A comparison of performance outcomes between the Minnesota Rate of Manipulation Test and the Minnesota Manual Dexterity Test. , 2003, Work.

[39]  Virgil Mathiowetz,et al.  Test-retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard for persons with multiple sclerosis. , 2003, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[40]  D. Aaron,et al.  Development of the Functional Dexterity Test (FDT): construction, validity, reliability, and normative data. , 2003, Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists.

[41]  W. Lankveld,et al.  Sequential Occupational Dexterity Assessment (SODA) , 1996 .

[42]  C. A. Trombly,et al.  Occupational Therapy for Physical Dysfunction , 1989 .

[43]  Ralph L. Rosnow,et al.  Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis , 1984 .

[44]  J. L. Winer,et al.  Examinee position and performance on the Minnesota Rate of Manipulation Test. , 1984, Journal of rehabilitation.

[45]  Mark E. Williams,et al.  Manual ability as a marker of dependency in geriatric women. , 1982, Journal of chronic diseases.