Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 21, 2025
Design, Fabrication, and Administration of the Hand Active Sensation Test HASTe
Published on: September 8, 2015
Prospective multicentre validation study of a new standardised version of the 400-point hand assessment
Michel Konzelmann1,2, Cyrille Burrus3,4, Colette Gable5
1Department for Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, Clinique Romande de Réadaptation suva, avenue du grand champsec, 1950 Sion, Switzerland. Michel.konzelmann@crr-suva.ch.
Background:
Hand rehabilitation needs valid evaluation tools; the 400-point Hand Assessment (HA) is an exhaustive but not standardised tool. The aim of this study was to validate a standardised version of this test.
Methods:
A modified version and a standardised prototype was made for this prospective validation study (four centres, three countries). Psychometric properties studied: reliability (intra-rater and inter-rater, standard error of measurement [SEM], minimum detectable change [MDC],internal consistency); content validity, construct validity with Jebsen Taylor hand function test, QuickDASH, MOS-SF 36 and pain; responsiveness, using an anchor-based approach (ROC curve with area under curve, mean response change) with calculation of MCID. For SEM, MDC and responsiveness, QuickDASH was used for comparison.
Results:
One hundred and seventy-six patients with hand/wrist injuries were included between May 2013 and February 2015. One hundred and seventy were available for final analysis: 67% men; mean age 43.4 ± 13.2 years; both manual and office workers (46, 5% of each); 37% had a hand or wrist fracture. Reliability: ICC intra-rater = 0.967 [0.938-0.982]; inter-rater = 0.868 [0.754-0.932]. Distribution-based approach: for 400-point HA/QuickDASH: SEM = 3.48/4.52, MDC = 9.065/12.53, internal consistency of 400-point HA: Cronbach α = 0.886.
Validity:
Content validity was good according to COSMIN guidelines. Construct validity: correlation coefficient: Jebsen-Taylor hand function test = - 0.573 [- 0.666-0.464], QuickDASH = - 0.432 at T0 [- 0.545-0.303], - 0.551 at T3 [- 0.648-0.436]; MOS-SF 36 physical component = 0.395 [0.263-0.513]; no correlation with MOS-SF 36 mental component = 0.142 [- 0.009 + 0.286] and pain = - 0.166 [- 0.306 + 0.018]. Responsiveness: Anchor-based approach: AUC Δ400-point HA = 0.666 [0.583-0.749], AUC ΔQuickDASH = 0.556 [0.466-0.646]. MCID (optimal ROC curve cut-off): 6.07 for 400-point HA, - 2.27 for QuickDASH. MCID with mean response change + 12.034 ± 9.067 for 400-point HA and - 8.03 ± -9.7 for QuickDASH. The patient's global impression of change was only correlated with the Δ400-point HA.
Conclusions:
The 400-point HA standardised version has good psychometric properties. For responsiveness, we propose an MCID of at least 12.3/100. However, these results must be confirmed in other populations and pathologies.
Trial Registration:
This study was retrospectively registered into ISCTRN registry (Number ISRCTN25874481) the 07/02/2019.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:23Assessment of blood pressure in brachial artery(two-step method)
01:27Assessment of the Cardiovascular System III: Palpation
Jugular Venous Pressure (JVP) Measurement
Position the patient at a thirty- to forty-five-degree angle or in a semi-fowler's position. Look for the highest point of pulsation in the internal jugular vein and measure the vertical distance to the angle of Loius or sternal angle. A normal JVP is 3-4 cm above...
01:15Assessment of blood pressure in brachial artery(one-step method)
Prepare for the Procedure:
01:10Pre-Procedural Guidelines for Assessing Blood Pressure