Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 29, 2025
Therapy Interventions for Upper Limb Amputees Undergoing Selective Nerve Transfers
Published on: October 29, 2021
A Descriptive Correlational Study to Evaluate Three Measures of Assessing Upper Extremity Function in Individuals
Aman Saini1, Audrey Zucker-Levin2, Benjamin McMillan1
1Office of the Saskatchewan MS Clinical Research Chair, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Background:
Activities of daily living and quality of life (QOL) are hindered by upper extremity (UE) impairments experienced by individuals with multiple sclerosis (iMS). The Nine-Hole Peg Test (9-HPT) is most frequently used to measure UE function. However, it does not measure peoples' ability to perform routine tasks in daily life and may not be useful in iMS who cannot pick up the pegs utilized in the 9-HPT. Therefore, we evaluated three measures to explore a more comprehensive assessment of UE function: Upper Extremity Function Scale (UEFS), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and the 9-HPT. The objectives were to quantitatively assess the relationship between these measures of UE function, understand if the measures correlate with QOL as calculated by the MS Quality of Life-54 (MSQOL-54), and to determine differences in the measures based on employment status.
Methods:
112 (79 female) iMS were prospectively recruited for this descriptive correlational study. Inclusion criteria were as follows: confirmed diagnosis of MS or clinically isolated syndrome, age ≥ 18 years, and ability to self-consent. All statistical analyses including Spearman's correlation coefficient (r ) and Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed using SPSS.
Results:
A moderate correlation (r = -0.51; p < 0.001) was found between the ARAT and 9-HPT scores for the more impaired hand. Likewise, a moderate correlation was found between UEFS and the physical health composite scores (PHCSs) of MSQOL-54 (r = -0.59; p < 0.001). Finally, performances on ARAT, 9-HPT, and UEFS differed between the employed individuals and those on long-term disability (p = 0.007, p < 0.001, and p = 0.001).
Conclusion:
The UEFS moderately correlated with the QOL measure, and considering the UESF is a patient-reported outcome, it could be used to complement routinely captured measures of assessing UE function. Further study is warranted to determine which measure, or combination of measures, is more sensitive to changes in UE function over time.
