Validity and Reliability of the Simplified Chinese Version of the Purdue Pegboard Test

Abstract

Administration of Purdue Pegboard Test (PPT) for fine motor testing among individuals with limited English comprehension is challenging. Translation of PPT into different language versions for use among individuals who speak other languages is crucial for examiner-examinee interactions. This study aimed to translate the PPT from English into Simplified Chinese (PPT-C) and evaluate the PPT-C linguistic content validity and test-retest reliability. Four English language teachers performed PPT’s forward and backward translations (Model 32020A) into PPT-C. Ten expert reviewers evaluated the linguistic content validity and 60 university students (1-trial administration (n = 30) and 3-trial administration (n = 30)) participated in the test-retest reliability evaluation. PPT-C showed excellent content validity with Item-Content Validity Index = 0.80 – 1.00, Scale-Content Validity Index/Average = 0.93 – 1.00, and Scale-Content Validity Index/Universal Agreement = 0.25 – 1.00. The 3-trial administration had higher test-retest reliability (moderate to good) with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) (standard error of measurements (SEMs)) = 0.69 (SEM = 0.88) – 0.81 (SEM = 0.69) compared to 1-trial administration (poor to moderate) with ICCs = 0.33 (SEM = 1.34) – 0.50 (SEM = 1.10). Both 1-trial and 3-trial administrations were likely to be affected by systematic errors, especially practice effects, as they had higher retest scores. Random errors were minimal; all subtests had minimal detectable change percent values within the acceptable range (15.36%–28.36%). Linguistic content validity and test-retest reliability evaluation showed that PPT-C can be used among Chinese-speaking individuals. It is recommended to use 3-trial administration for more reliable evaluation.

Keywords

dexterity motor skill hand function evaluation dexterity assessment psychometrics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aldehag

A. S.

Jonsson

Littorin

Ansved

(2008). Reliability of hand function testing instruments in patients with muscular dystrophies. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 15(5), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2008.15.5.29232

Amirjani

Ashworth

N. L.

Olson

J. L.

Morhart

Chan

K. M.

(2011). Validity and reliability of the Purdue Pegboard Test in carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle & Nerve, 43(2), 171–177. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.21856

Buddenberg

L. A.

Davis

(2000). Test–retest reliability of the purdue pegboard test. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54(5), 555–558. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.54.5.555

Chen

C. C.

Ringenbach

S. D.

(2015). A pilot study for test–retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard Test in adolescents and young adults with down syndrome. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 3(2), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2015-0004

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Desrosiers

Hebert

Bravo

Dutil

(1995). The purdue pegboard test: Normative data for people aged 60 and over. Disability, 17(5), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638289509166638

Doyen

A. L.

Carlier

(2002). Measuring handedness: A validation study of bishop's reaching card test. Laterality, 7(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500143000140

Gallus

Mathiowetz

(2003). Test–retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard for persons with multiple sclerosis. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(1), 108–111. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.57.1.108

Koo

T. K.

M. Y.

(2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

10.

Lee

K. M.

Lee

Chung

C. Y.

Ahn

Sung

K. H.

Kim

T. W.

Lee

H. J.

Park

M. S.

(2012). Pitfalls and important issues in testing reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients in orthopaedic research. Clinical Orthopaedic Surgery, 4(2), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2012.4.2.149

11.

Lee

Liu

C. H.

Fan

C. W.

C. P.

W. S.

Hsieh

C. L.

(2013). The test–retest reliability and the minimal detectable change of the Purdue Pegboard Test in schizophrenia. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 112(6), 332–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2012.02.023

12.

Lim

Y. X.

Chai

S. C.

(2020). Standardized-translated instruction versus spontaneously-translated instruction: Test-retest and inter-rater reliability of a hand function test. Journal of Hand Therapy, 33(4), 553–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2019.09.001

13.

Lynn

M. R.

(1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–385.

14.

Muller

M. D.

Ryan

E. J.

Kim

C. H.

Muller

S. M.

Glickman

E. L.

(2011). Test–retest reliability of Purdue Pegboard performance in thermoneutral and cold ambient conditions. Ergonomics, 54(11), 1081–1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2011.620178

15.

Polit

D. F.

Beck

C. T.

(2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147

16.

Polit

D. F.

Beck

C. T.

Owen

S. V.

(2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199

17.

Poo

Y. S.

Chai

S. C.

Goh

P. I.

Kadar

Razaob@Razab

N. A.

(2023). The standardised Malay version of Purdue pegboard test: Content validity and test-retest reliability testing. Hong Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy, 36(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/15691861231179012

18.

Portney

L. G.

Watkins

M. P.

(2000). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall Health.

19.

Proud

E. L.

Bilney

Miller

K. J.

Morris

M. E.

McGinley

J. L.

(2019). Measuring hand dexterity in people with Parkinson’s disease: Reliability of pegboard tests. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73(4), 7304205050p1–7304205050p8. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2019.031112

20.

Reddon

J. R.

Gill

D. M.

Gauk

S. E.

Maerz

M. D.

(1988). Purdue pegboard: Test-retest estimates. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66(2), 503–506. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1988.66.2.503

21.

Tiffin

(1968). Purdue pegboard, examiner’s manual. Science Research Associates: Inc.

22.

Tiffin

Asher

E. J.

(1948). The Purdue Pegboard: Norms and studies of reliability and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061266

23.

Weir

J. P.

(2005). Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 19(1), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1519/15184.1

24.

Wilson

B. C.

Iacoviello

J. M.

Wilson

J. J.

Risucci

(1982). Purdue Pegboard performance of normal preschool children. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 4(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/01688638208401113