Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund: Zur Messung der Geschicklichkeit der Hand nach Paresen oder Verletzungen werden in
der Literatur verschiedene Modelle des Nine-hole-peg-Tests (NHPT) beschrieben.
Ziel: Die Studie verglich 2 verschiedene Modelle des NHPT bei Patienten nach Schlaganfall
anhand folgender Fragestellungen: Unterscheiden sich die Testergebnisse der beiden
NHPT-Versionen? Gibt es Lerneffekte bei der Testdurchführung? Zeigen die Versionen
eine vergleichbare Verlaufssensitivität?
Methode: In der Quer- und Längsschnitt-Pilotstudie absolvierten 9 Patienten mit verminderter
manueller Geschicklichkeit in der Frühphase nach Schlaganfall vor und nach 3 Wochen
Therapie je 6 Messungen mit beiden NHPT-Versionen.
Ergebnisse: Die beiden NHPT-Versionen unterschieden sich bei Patienten nach Schlaganfall nicht
signifikant. Bei beiden konnte während der 6 Testwiederholungen kein signifikanter
Lerneffekt gezeigt werden. Beide Versionen sind sensitiv für Verbesserungen der manuellen
Geschicklichkeit innerhalb von 3 Wochen.
Schlussfolgerungen: Im Sinne eines Screening-Tests eignen sich beide NHPT-Versionen zur Verlaufsdokumentation.
Dafür spielt es keine Rolle, welche Testversion benutzt wird. Da innerhalb der 6 Messwiederholungen
kein Lerneffekt zu beobachten ist, genügt 1 Messung pro Testtag. In dieser Studie
waren zwar auch Patienten mit schlechter manueller Geschicklichkeit eingeschlossen,
der NHPT eignet sich aber eher für Patienten mit mittlerer bis guter Handfunktion.
Abstract
Background: To measure hand dexterity after paresis or injury, in literature different models
of the nine-hole-peg test (NHPT) are described.
Objective: This study compared 2 different NHPT versions in stroke patients according to the
following questions: Do the test results of both NHPT versions differ? Is there a
learning effect during the test procedure? Do they show comparable sensitivity performance
changes?
Methods: In this cross-sectional and longitudinal pilot study 9 patients with reduced manual
dexterity in early phases after stroke performed 6 times both NHPT versions before
and after 3 weeks of therapy.
Results: The 2 NHPT versions did not show significant differences for stroke patients. There
was no evidence for a significant learning effect within the 6 test reruns. Both versions
are sensitive for improvements of the manual dexterity within 3 weeks.
Conclusions: In terms of a screening test both NHPT versions are suitable for documenting manual
dexterity changes. It is irrelevant which of the versions is used. As there is no
learning effect within the 6 test reruns 1 measurement for each test day is sufficient.
However, it must be considered that this study included also patients with poor manual
dexterity, but the NHPT is rather suitable for patients with moderate to good hand
dexterity.
Schlüsselwörter
Nine-hole-peg-Test - Sensitivität - Handfunktion - Lerneffekte
Key words
nine hole peg test - sensitivity - hand function - learning effects
Literatur
- 1
Croarkin E, Danoff J, Barnes C.
Evidence-based rating of upper-extremity motor function tests used for people following
a stroke.
Phys Ther.
2004;
84
62-74
- 2
Davis J, Kayser P, Matlin P. et al .
Nine Hole Peg Test: Are they all the same?.
OT Practice.
1999;
4
59-61
- 3
Goodkin D E, Hertsgaard D, Seminary J.
Upper extremity function in multiple sclerosis: improving assessment sensitivity with
box-and-block and nine-hole peg tests.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
1988;
69
850-854
- 4
Grice K O, Vogel K A, Le V. et al .
Adult norms for a commercially available Nine Hole Peg Test for finger dexterity.
Am J Occup Ther.
2003;
57
570-573
- 5
Heller A, Wade D T, Wood V A. et al .
Arm function after stroke: measurement and recovery over the first three months.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr.
1987;
50
714-719
- 6
Kellor M, Frost J, Silberberg N. et al .
Hand strength and dexterity.
Am J Occup Ther.
1971;
15
77-83
- 7
Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Kashman N. et al .
Adult norms for the Nine-hole-peg Test of finger dexterity.
The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research.
1985;
5
24-38
- 8
Parker V M, Wade D T, Langton Hewer R.
Loss of arm function after stroke: measurement, frequency, and recovery.
Int Rehabil Med.
1986;
8
69-73
- 9 Sharpless J W. The nine-hole-peg test of finger-hand coordination for the hemiplegic
patient. Sharpless JW Mossman’s problem oriented approach to stroke rehabilitation
Springfield; Thomas 1982
- 10
Smith Y A, Hong E, Presson C.
Normative and validation studies of the Nine-hole Peg Test with children.
Percept Mot Skills.
2000;
90
823-843
- 11
Sunderland A, Tinson D, Bradley L. et al .
Arm function after stroke. An evaluation of grip strength as a measure of recovery
and a prognostic indicator.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr.
1989;
52
1267-1272
- 12 Wade D T. Measurement in Neurological Rehabilitation. Oxford; Oxford University
Press 2003
- 13 World Health Organisation (WHO) .International Classification of Functioning, Disability
and Health (ICF). Geneva; WHO 2001
- 14 www.homecraft-rolyan.com
Dipl. Physiotherapeut, MSc Kaspar Herren
Physiotherapie Neurologie
Anna-Seiler-Haus
Inselspital
3010 Bern
Schweiz
eMail: kaspar.herren@insel.ch
