The ABILHAND questionnaire assesses bimanual ability as an interview-based test focused on the patient's perceived difficulty. The ABILHAND-KIDS questionnaire is filled in by the parent of the child by rating the child’s perceived difficulty of bimanual activities.
Chronic Stroke: 23 items
Rheumatoid Arthritis: 27 items
Systemic Sclerosis: 26 items
Neuromuscular Disorders: 22 items
ABILHAND-KIDS:
English: 21 items
Portuguese: 21 items
Turkish: 18 items
10 minutes
Children (ABILHAND-KIDS)
6 - 17
yearsAdult
18 - 64
yearsElderly Adult
65 +
yearsReviewed by: Namrata Grampurohit, PhD, OTR/L, Jefferson University; Majd Jarrar, MS, OTR/L, University of Washington; Ann Van de Winckel, PhD, MS, PT, University of Minnesota, March 2018.
Bimanual Activities
Rasch analysis report is generated by entering scores online
Chronic stroke:
(Ekstrand 2014; n=43; mean age=64 ± 8 years, range 45-81 years of age; time post-stroke=16 ± 8 months)
SEM for the entire group (n=43): 21%
SEM after removing 4 outliers (n=39): 15%
Subacute - Chronic Stroke:
(Wang 2011; n=51, mean age=55.26 ± 10.31 years, time post-stroke=17.57 ± 13.43 months)
MCID: 0.26 to 0.35 logits
Stroke:
(Simone 2011; n=150, stroke = 83, multiple sclerosis=17, cerebellar ataxia=13, spinal cord injury=10, Parkinson Disease=3, healthy=24); age range = 15-89 years)
Normative cut off >79 on 100 (sensitivity 92%; specificity 80%)
Chronic stroke:
(Ekstrand 2014; n=43; mean age=64 ± 8 years, range 45-81 years of age; time post-stroke=16 ± 8 months)
Excellent test-retest reliability for the entire sample (n=43)
(ICC=0.85)
Excellent test-retest reliability after removing 4 outliers (n=39) (ICC=0.91)
Chronic Stroke:
(Basilio 2016; n=107; mean age=58 ± 12 years; time post-stroke=64 months, range 6-380 months post-stroke)
Excellent Person separation index=0.91
Chronic stroke:
(Penta 2001; n=103; mean age=63 years, range 24-84 years of age; time post-stroke=38 months, range 6-253 months post-stroke)
Excellent Person separation index (comparable to Coefficient alpha)=0.90
Concurrent validity:
Stroke
(Krumlinde-Sundholm 2017; n=144; mean age=53 ± 11.45 years, range 19-86 years of age)
Excellent concurrent validity with Adult-Assisting Hand Assessment Stroke): the “Sandwich” task (Spearman rho=0.77, p<0.05), and the “Present” task (Spearman rho=0.80, p<0.05)
Subacute - Chronic stroke:
(Wang 2011; n=51, mean age=55.26 ± 10.31 years, time post-stroke=17.57 ± 13.43 months post-stroke)
Adequate concurrent validity with Stroke Impact Scale – physical domains (r =0.54-0.66, p<0.01)
Poor to Adequate concurrent validity with Functional Independence Measure–motor domain
Poor to Adequate concurrent validity with the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale (r =0.28-0.48, p<0.01)
Predictive Validity:
Stroke - evaluated at 1 months, 3 months and 6 months post-stroke:
(Bouffioulx 2011; n=45; mean age=69 ± 10.7 years, range 45-93 years of age)
During the chronic phase, ABILHAND was the strongest predictor of perceived satisfaction reported with the SATIS-stroke questionnaire. It accounted for 35% of the variance.
Subacute - Chronic stroke:
(Wang 2011; n=51, mean age=55.26 ± 10.31 years, time post-stroke=17.57 ± 13.43 months)
Excellent predictive validity with the Stroke Impact Scale-physical function (r=0.66, p<0.01)
Adequate predictive validity with the Functional Independence Measure – motor domain (r=0.43, p<0.01)
Adequate predictive validity with an accelerometer (r=0.45, p<0.01)
Poor predictive validity with the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale (r=0.29, p<0.05)
Chronic Stroke:
(Bertrand 2015; n=34; mean age=57 ± 13.7 years)
Excellent convergent validity with the Motricity Index obtained at weeks 2 (r=0.71), 4 (r=0.80), 8 (r=0.69), and 12 (r=0.82)
Stroke - evaluated at 1 months, 3 months and 6 months post-stroke:
(Bouffioulx 2011; n=45; mean age=69 ± 10.7 years, range 45-93 years of age)
Poor to adequate convergent validity with Satisfaction with activity and participation SATIS-Stroke questionnaire at 1 week (r=0.23, p>0.05), 3 months (r=0.34, p<0.05), and 6 months post-stroke (r=0.66, p<0.05)
Stroke
(Krumlinde-Sundholm 2017; n=144; mean age=53 ± 11.45 years, range 19-86 years of age)
Excellent convergent validity with the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function test (Spearman rho=0.86, p<0.05)
Chronic Stroke:
(Meyer 2016, n=32; median age at stroke onset=68.3 years, interquartile range 61.3-80.1 years; evaluated at 6 months post-stroke)
Excellent convergent validity with the “perceptual threshold of touch” test (Spearman rho=-0.67)
Poor convergent validity with the exteroceptive somatosensation evaluated by the Erasmus MC modification of the (revised) Nottingham sensory assessment (Em-NSA):
Em-NSA - light touch (cotton wool) (Spearman rho=0.20)
Em-NSA - pressure (index finger) (Spearman rho =0.20)
Em-NSA - pinprick (toothpick) (Spearman rho=0.20)
Poor to Adequate convergent validity with proprioceptive somatosensation:
Em-NSA - movement sense (Spearman rho=0.24)
thumb finding test (Spearman rho=-0.35)
Poor to Adequate convergent validity with cortical somatosensation
Em-NSA - sharp/dull discrimination (Spearman rho=0.03)
Em-NSA – stereognosis (Spearman rho=0.46)
two-point discrimination (Spearman rho=-0.19)
Subacute (n=5), Chronic (n=12) Stroke:
(Michielson 2009)
Excellent convergent validity with the Stroke Upper Limb Assessment (Spearman rho=0.64)
Chronic Stroke:
(Penta 2001; n=103; mean age=63 years, range 24-84 years of age; time post-stroke=38 months, range 6-253 months)
Excellent convergent validity with upper limb motor function as measured by Brunnstrom motor assessment (r=0.73; p<0.001)
Adequate convergent validity with paretic limb grip strength on the Jamar dynamometer (r=0.56; p<0.001)
Adequate convergent validity with the Box and block test, assessing dexterity (r=0.60; p<0.001)
Stroke:
(Simone 2011; n=150, stroke = 83, multiple sclerosis=17, cerebellar ataxia=13, spinal cord injury=10, Parkinson Disease=3, healthy participants=24); age range = 15-89 years)
Adequate convergent validity with the Jamar Dynamometer (r=0.377, p=0.001)
Adequate convergent validity with the Box and Block (r=0.481, p<0.001)
Adequate convergent validity with the Purdue Pegboard (r=0.493, p<0.001)
Adequate convergent validity with the Nine Hole Peg Test (r=-0.370, p=0.007)
Subacute - Chronic stroke:
(Wang 2011; n=51, mean age=55.26 ± 10.31 years, time post-stroke=17.57 ± 13.43 months)
Adequate convergent validity with an accelerometer (r =0.45-0.54, p<0.01)
Discriminant validity:
Chronic Stroke:
(Penta 2001; n=103; mean age=63 years, range 24-84 years of age; time post-stroke=38 months, range 6-253 months post-stroke)
Poor discriminant validity with the Geriatric Depression Scale (Spearman rho=-0.213; p=0.03)
Chronic Stroke:
(Penta 2001; n=103; mean age=63 years, range 24-84 years of age; time post-stroke=38 months, range 6-253 months)
Fit to the Rasch Measurement Theory (item fit, reversed thresholds, Differential Item Functioning)
Using the Rasch Measurement Theory model, 23 bimanual items fit the model and were retained. The items ranged on the interval scale from -2.18 to 1.72 log-odds units, called ‘logits’, with higher logit values indicating more difficult activities.
Unimanual items were removed as they were the easiest for patients with chronic stroke and least related to the manual ability construct (point-measure correlation coefficient <0.50). Also, three additional items were deleted as they were not commonly practiced among the calibrating sample.
Four levels of scoring (0=impossible; 1=very difficult; 2=difficult, 3=easy) were collapsed into three levels (0=impossible; 1=any difficulty; 2=easy)
Differential item functioning (DIF) evaluates whether subgroups respond differently in terms of hierarchy of item difficulty. Twelve subgroups were tested for DIF: (1) sex (male versus female); (2) country (Belgium versus Italy); (3) age (<60 versus ≥60 years); (4) affected side (dominant versus non-dominant); (5) delay since cerebrovascular accident (CVA) (<2 versus ≥2 years); (6) level of depression (<score 10 versus ≥10); (7) dexterity of the unaffected upper limb (less versus more dexterity, split on the median score); (8) manual ability (less versus more able, split on the median manual ability measure); (9, 10, 11) grip strength, dexterity, sensitivity of the affected upper limb (less versus more deficit, computed as the difference between affected and unaffected side, split on the median difference); and (12) motor function of the affected upper limb (less versus more motor function, split on the median motor function score). The hierarchy of the items (from easy to difficult) is maintained across subgroups of adults with stroke except for “shelling hazel nuts” which appears to be more difficult for women than for men, while “tearing open a pack of chips” appears to be more difficult for patients older than 60 years than for younger patients
Chronic Stroke:
(Penta 2001; n=103; mean age=63 years, range 24-84 years of age; time post-stroke=38 months, range 6-253 months post-stroke)
Four occupational therapists were independently asked to classify each item according to the involvement of the affected hand in the activity as (1) not requiring affected limb; (2) requiring affected limb to stabilize object; (3) requiring precision grip, grip strength, dexterity or any digital activity from affected side. The authors reported agreement among content experts
Chronic Stroke:
(Penta 2001; n=103; mean age=63 years, range 24-84 years of age; time post-stroke=38 months, range 6-253 months post-stroke)
Least measurable difference (similar to minimal detectable change) = 0.13 logits in the center of the scale indicating a high sensitivity to change.
Subacute - Chronic stroke:
(Wang 2011; n=51, mean age=55.26 ± 10.31 years, time post-stroke=17.57 ± 13.43 months)
Standard response mean = 1.27 logits
Rheumatoid arthritis:
(Batcho 2011; n=88; mean age=57.53 ± 11.87 years; disease duration=13.13 ± 10.47 years; re-testing time=1 year after use of disease modifying drugs)
MCID
Small change: 0.47 logits; Moderate change: 1.18 logits; Large change: 1.89 logits
Deteriorated group: -1.23 ± 1.53 logits
Improved group: 1.22 ± 2.06 logits
Stable group: 0.48 ± 1.09 logits
Rheumatoid arthritis:
(Durez 2007; n=35)
Adequate test-retest reliability (ICC=0.74)
Rheumatoid arthritis:
(Batcho 2011; n=88; age=57.53 ± 11.87 years)
Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=0.86
Rheumatoid arthritis:
(Penta 1998; n=18; Age range 38-77 years; time since diagnosis range 7-41 years; time since wrist arthrodesis surgery mean=7 years, range 0.5 to 15 years)
Excellent item separation reliability=0.90
Excellent person separation reliability=0.96
Convergent validity:
Rheumatoid arthritis:
(Durez 2007; n=112; mean age=55 years, range 25-82 years; mean disease duration=10.7 years, range 0.5-44.5 years)
Rheumatoid arthritis:
(Penta 1998; n=18; Age range 38-77 years; time since diagnosis 7-41 years; time since wrist arthrodesis surgery mean=7 years, range 0.5-15 years)
Unidimensionality established for ABILHAND 23-item version (difficulty range of the items =-2.36-1.82 logits)
Rheumatoid arthritis:
(Durez 2007; n=112; mean age=55 years, range 25-82 years; mean disease duration=10.7 years, range 0.5-44.5 years)
Fit to the Rasch Measurement Theory (item fit, reversed thresholds, Differential Item Functioning)
Using the Rasch Measurement Theory model, 27 bimanual items fit the model on a 3-point scale (0=impossible; 1=any difficulty; 2=easy). The items ranged on the interval scale from -2.18 to 2.65 log-odds units, called ‘logits’, with higher logit values indicating more difficult activities.
Differential item functioning (DIF) evaluates whether subgroups respond differently in terms of hierarchy of item difficulty. The item-difficulty hierarchy was stable across demographic and clinical subgroups and over time. The exceptions were items such as (b) screwing on a nut, (e) hammering a nail and (m) handling a stapler presented greater difficulty for women than for men. Such activities require more strength and are more commonly performed by men, suggesting that the lack of invariance might reflect cultural factors
Systemic Sclerosis:
(Vanthuyne 2009; n = 156, mean disease duration 9.7 years; French (n=67) and Dutch versions (n=89) of ABILHAND were used)
Excellent reliability (ICC=0.96 – 0.98)
Systemic Sclerosis:
(Vanthuyne 2009; n = 156, mean disease duration 9.7 years; French (n=67) and Dutch versions (n=89) of ABILHAND were used)
Excellent reliability index = 0.97
Predictive validity:
Systemic Sclerosis:
(Vanthuyne 2009; n = 156, mean disease duration 9.7 years; French (n=67) and Dutch versions (n=89) of ABILHAND were used)
Convergent validity:
Systemic Sclerosis:
(Vanthuyne 2009; n = 156, mean disease duration 9.7 years; French (n=67) and Dutch versions (n=89) of ABILHAND were used)
Poor convergent validity with disease duration (Spearman rho= - 0.28, p<0.001)
Excellent convergent validity with Health assessment questionnaire score (Spearman rho= - 0.73, p<0.001)
Discriminant validity:
Systemic Sclerosis:
(Ahrens 2016; n=106; mean age=52 ± 15 years; Mean duration of disease=11.3 ± 10.1 years)
No correlation between Digital Ulcers Score and ABILHAND (r= -0.138, p=0.22)
Systemic Sclerosis:
(Vanthuyne 2009; n = 156, mean disease duration 9.7 years; French (n=67) and Dutch versions (n=89) of ABILHAND were used)
56 original ABILHAND scores were tested + 25 additional manual tasks considered difficult for this particular population.
Fit to the Rasch Measurement Theory (item fit, reversed thresholds, Differential Item Functioning)
Using the Rasch Measurement Theory model, 26 bimanual items (among which 6 of the extra items) fit the model on a 3-point scale (0=impossible; 1=any difficulty; 2=easy). The items ranged on the interval scale from -2.59 to 2.41 log-odds units, called ‘logits’, with higher logit values indicating more difficult activities.
Differential item functioning (DIF) evaluates whether subgroups respond differently in terms of hierarchy of item difficulty. The item-difficulty hierarchy was stable across 12 patient-related factors and over time, with two exceptions: activities requiring more manual strength (i.e., opening a screw-top jar and shelling hazelnuts) were considered to be more difficult for women than for men.
Systemic Sclerosis:
(Vanthuyne 2009; n = 156, mean disease duration 9.7 years; French (n=67) and Dutch versions (n=89) of ABILHAND were used)
Neuromuscular conditions:
Turkish Version
(?ksüz 2017; n= 93; mean age = 9.5± 2.6 years, range 6-15 years, ABILHAND-KIDS)
SEM= 2.6 for total score
Neuromuscular conditions:
Turkish Version
(?ksüz 2017; n=93; mean age=9.5± 2.6 years, range 6-15 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
MDC=7.1
Neuromuscular disorders:
Turkish Version
(?ksüz 2017; n= 93; mean age=9.5± 2.6 years, range 6-15 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=0.94)
Neuromuscular conditions:
(Vandervelde 2010; n=248, adults=124, children with parent reporting=124; mean age adults=47 years, mean age children =10 years, French and Dutch versions of ABILHAND were used)
Excellent reliability index=0.95
Duchene Muscular Dystrophy:
(Janssen 2018; mean age=13 years, range 1-35 years)
Excellent internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha: 0.97 (Gross hand function, n=16), 0.98 (Fine hand function, n=10)
Neuromuscular disorders:
Turkish Version
(?ksüz 2017; n= 93; mean age=9.5± 2.6 years, range 6-15 years)
Excellent: Cronbach alpha=0.81
Adequate separation reliability=0.73
Concurrent validity:
Duchene Muscular Dystrophy:
(Janssen 2018; mean age=13 years, range 1-35 years)
Convergent validity:
Neuromuscular conditions:
(Vandervelde 2010; n=248, adults=124, children with parent reporting=124; mean age adults=47 years, mean age children =10 years; French and Dutch versions of ABILHAND were used)
Unidimensionality of the 22-item scale (item difficulty range 2.27 to -2.25 logits)
Adequate convergent validity with grip strength using Jamar dynamometer (right hand r=0.36, p<0.001; left hand r=0.40, p<0.001)
Excellent convergent validity with ACTIVLIM (r=0.76, p<0.001)
Duchene Muscular Dystrophy:
(Janssen 2018; mean age=13 years, range 1-35 years)
Principal component analysis: Two factors:
Gross hand function: Eigen value=19.7, explained 75.7% of variance
Fine hand function: Eigen value=1.2, explained 4.7% of variance
Neuromuscular disorders:
Turkish Version
(?ksüz 2017; n= 93; mean age = 9.5± 2.6 years, range 6-15 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Eighteen items were appropriate to the Rasch model for the Turkish ABILHAND-Kids (Total item chi square (36) = 128.32 p < .001). The mean item fit residual was -0.242 ± 0.900
Item difficulty ranged from 1.52 to -1.04 logits. Majority of the items fit the inside the recommended range -2.50 to +2.50. “Opening a pack of biscuits” was the only exception which displayed a different level of fit to the other items (82.05) and had a significant probability (p=0.001)
Moderate correlation between the Turkish version of ABILHAND-Kids and Wee-Functional Independence Measure (Wee-FIM) (r=0.67, p<0.01)
Moderate to weak correlation between the Turkish version of ABILHAND-Kids and Brooke Upper Extremity Functional Classification (BUEFC) (r= -.37,p<0.01)
Neuromuscular disorders
(Vandervelde 2012; n=148 (adults= 124, children= 124); mean age for children=10 years, range 6-16 years; mean age for adults= 47, range 16-80 years)
Poor correlation with grip strength (r=0.36, p < 0.001 for right and r = 0.40, p<0.001 for the left hand) and with age (r=0.14, p=0.03)
Strong correlation between ABILHAND-kids and the ACTIVLIM measures (r =0.76, p<0.001)
Neuromuscular conditions:
(Vandervelde 2010; n=248, adults=124, children with parent reporting=124; mean age adults=47 years, mean age children =10 years; French and Dutch versions of ABILHAND were used)
Fit to the Rasch Measurement Theory (item fit, reversed thresholds, Differential Item Functioning)
Using the Rasch Measurement Theory model, 22 bimanual items (4 children specific items; 4 adult specific items and 14 items commonly applicable to both children and adults) fit the model on a 3-point scale (0=impossible; 1=any difficulty; 2=easy). The items ranged on the interval scale from -2.25 to 2.27 log-odds units, called ‘logits’, with higher logit values indicating more difficult activities.
Differential item functioning (DIF) evaluates whether subgroups respond differently in terms of hierarchy of item difficulty. The item-difficulty hierarchy was stable across 6 patient-related factors.
Neuromuscular conditions:
(Vandervelde 2010; n=248, adults=124, children with parent reporting=124; mean age adults=47 years, mean age children =10 years; French and Dutch versions of ABILHAND were used)
Adequate ceiling effect for children (15%)
Poor ceiling effect for adults (29%)
Neuromuscular disorders:
Turkish Version ABILHAND-KIDS
(?ksüz 2017; n= 93; mean age = 9.5 ± 2.6 years, range 6-15 years)
Adequate floor effect (1.1%)
Adequate ceiling effect (11.8%)
Non-specific patient population:
(Arnould 2012; n = 762, children = 113, adults=103, rheumatoid arthritis=112, systemic sclerosis=156, neuromuscular disorders children=124, neuromuscular disorders adults=124)
Principal component analysis:
57% of the variance in the item difficulty between diagnoses was explained by the symmetric or asymmetric nature of the disorders.
Fit to the Rasch Measurement Theory (item fit, reversed thresholds, Differential Item Functioning)
Using the Rasch Measurement Theory model, 52 out of the original 83 manual activities shared by at least 2 diagnostic groups were retained. These 52 items were composed of 11 bimanual items which shared a common difficulty among diagnoses while 41 items displayed a category-specific location depending on the asymmetric (27 items) or symmetric nature (14 items) of the disorders. The items ranged on the interval scale from -3.93 to 3.60 log-odds units, called ‘logits’, with higher logit values indicating more difficult activities
Epidermolysis Bullosa:
(Eismann 2014; n=71, Epidermolysis bullosa=17, Junctional EB=10, Dominant Dystrophic EB=12, Recessive epidermolysis bullosa=32; mean age=8.9 ± 4.2 years)
The ABILHAND-Kids questionnaire demonstrated face validity with children of the above mentioned diagnoses. Children with more severe Epidermolysis Bullosa subtypes reported worse hand function.
Epidermolysis Bullosa:
(Eismann 2014; n=71, Epidermolysis bullosa=17, Junctional EB=10, Dominant Dystrophic EB=12, Recessive epidermolysis bullosa=32; mean age=8.9 ± 4.2 years)
No floor effect (0%)
Adequate ceiling effect (less than 10%)
Unilateral upper-limb amputation:
(Burger 2009; n=72; mean age=57 ± 16.9 years; time since amputation=33 ± 17.4 years)
Excellent item separation index =0.98
Excellent person separation index =0.92
Concurrent validity:
Unilateral upper-limb amputation:
(Burger 2009; n=72; mean age=57 ± 16.9 years; time since amputation=33 ± 17.4 years)
Excellent concurrent validity with Upper extremity Functional Status Module of the Orthotics and Prosthetics User Survey (r=0.71)
Unilateral upper-limb amputation:
(Burger 2009; n=72; mean age=57 ± 16.9 years; time since amputation=33 ± 17.4 years)
Fit to the Rasch Measurement Theory (item fit, reversed thresholds, Differential Item Functioning)
Using the Rasch Measurement Theory model, 22 of the 46 original items fit the model on a 4-point scale (0=impossible; 1=difficult; 2=easy; 3=very easy). The items ranged on the interval scale from -2.75 to 3.36 log-odds units, called ‘logits’, with higher logit values indicating more difficult activities.
Differential item functioning (DIF) evaluates whether subgroups respond differently in terms of hierarchy of item difficulty. The item-difficulty hierarchy was stable across 5 patient-related factors
Multiple Sclerosis:
(Simone 2011; n=150, stroke = 83, multiple sclerosis=17, cerebellar ataxia=13, spinal cord injury=10, Parkinson Disease=3, healthy=24); age range = 15-89 years)
Normative cut off >79 on 100 (sensitivity 92%; specificity 80%)
Multiple Sclerosis:
(Barrett 2013; n=300; mean age=52 ± 12 years)
Excellent Person Separation Index=0.95
Multiple Sclerosis:
(Barrett 2013; n=300; mean age=52 ± 12 years)
Excellent Cronbach’s alpha=0.98
Multiple Sclerosis:
(Barrett 2013; n=300; mean age = 52 ± 12 years)
Excellent convergent validity with Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand (r=-0.89)
Excellent convergent validity with the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (physical impact, r=-0.75)
Adequate convergent validity with Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12 (r=-0.55)
Multiple Sclerosis:
(Ruth 2017; n=7463; mean age=57.4 ± 10.2 years)
Adequate convergent validity for higher levels of disability with lower scores on ABILHAND (r=- 0.50)
Cerebral Palsy:
(Arnould 2004; n=113, tetraplegia=35, diplegia=24, hemiplegia=54; mean age=10 years, range 6-15 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Excellent test-retest reliability (Pearson correlation coefficient (r=0.91)
Cerebral Palsy:
(De Jong 2017; n= 27; mean age=10 ± 4 years, range 4-18 years)
Parents’ perception-based rating from memory
Excellent test-retest reliability for parents using performance-based ratings (ICC=0.81)
Capacity based ratings by physicians, parents, and occupational therapist rated the children after watching two video recordings that was made by the children’s own occupational therapist performing the 21 tasks
Excellent test-retest reliability for physicians (ICC= 0.98), occupational therapists (ICC= 0.97), parents (ICC= 0.97), video recording session one (ICC= 0.91), video recording session two (ICC= 0.91), and combined session one and two (ICC= 0.92)
Cerebral Palsy:
(Kamonseki 2017; n=21, quadriplegia=4, diplegia=15, hemiplegia=4; mean age = 13.1±4.6 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Portuguese version:
Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=0.91)
Cerebral Palsy:
(Kamonseki 2017; n=21, quadriplegia=4, diplegia=15, hemiplegia=4; mean age = 13.1±4.6 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Portuguese version:
Excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC=0.97)
Cerebral Palsy:
(De Jong 2017; n=27; mean age=10 ± 4 years, range 4-18 years)
Intra-rater coefficient for parents’ perception-based rating from memory (ICC=0.81)
Capacity based ratings for physicians, parents, and occupational therapist rated the children after watching two video recordings that was made by the children’s own occupational therapist performing the 21 tasks
Intra-rater coefficient for all capacity ratings (ICC=0.92), video recording session one (ICC =0.91), video recording session two (ICC =0.91), physician (ICC =0.98), occupational therapist (ICC =0.97), parents (ICC =0.97)
Cerebral Palsy:
(Arnould 2004; n=113, tetraplegia=35, diplegia=24, hemiplegia=54; mean age=10 years, range 6-15 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Excellent separation reliability for the parents=0.94 and children=0.87
Cerebral Palsy:
(Kamonseki 2017; n=21, quadriplegia=4, diplegia=15, hemiplegia=4; mean age=13.1 ± 4.6 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Portuguese version:
Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.99)
Convergent validity:
Cerebral Palsy:
(Bleyeheuft 2017; n= 98; mean age=11.8 ± 3.3 years, range 6-19 years ABILHAND-KIDS)
Adequate convergent validity with Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (Spearman rho=0.430, p=0.003)
Poor convergent validity with Assisted Hand Assessment (Spearman rho= 0.430, p=0.49). Jebsen-Taylor Test of Hand Function more affected side(r=-0.03, p=0.86), and less affected side (r=-0.05, p=0.75)
Cerebral palsy:
(Ohrvall 2012; n=91, mean age= 9.8 ± 3 years, range 5-17 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Excellent convergent validity with Manual Ability Classification System (r=?0.88, p<0.05)
Cerebral palsy:
(Kirkpatrick 2013; n=76, mean age=9.09 ± 2.94 years, range 4-15 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Poor convergent validity with motor planning (r=0.10, p=0.45)
Cerebral palsy:
(Klingels 2012; n=81; mean age=9.11 years, range 5-15 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Poor convergent validity with passive range of motion overall (r=-0.15, p<0.01), shoulder (r=-0.06, p<0.01), elbow (r=-0.12, p<0.01), wrist (r=-0.23, p < 0.01)
Excellent convergent validity with muscle tone (r= 0.61, p<0.001), muscle strength (r= 0.71, p<0.001), muscle strength at shoulder (r=0.64, p<0.001), grip strength (r=0.64, p<0.001), two- point discrimination (r= 0.64, p<0.001), and stereognosis (r= 0.70, p<0.001)
Adequate convergent validity with muscle tone at shoulder (r=0.47, p<0.001), elbow (r=0.54, p < 0.001), wrist (r= 0.54, p<0.001), muscle strength (r=0.46, p<0.001), exteroception (r= 0.40, p<0.01), and proprioception (r= 0.38, p<0.01)
Cerebral Palsy:
(Geerdink 2014; n=40; mean age=8.2 years, range 5-17.6 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Adequate convergent validity with Modified House Classification (r=0.558, p<0.001)
Cerebral Palsy:
(Makki 2014; n=100; mean age=10.3 years, range 6 -12 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Excellent convergent validity with Manual Ability Classification System (r=-0.82, p<0.001) and Gross Motor Function Classification System (r=-0.74 p<0.001)
Cerebral Palsy:
(Koltz 2014; n=23; mean age=13 years, range 9-17 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Excellent convergent validity with Manual Ability Classification System (r=0.872, p<0.001)
Cerebral Palsy:
(Van Meeteren 2007; n=26; mean age=20.6 ± 1.2 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Adequate convergent validity with grip strength (r= 0.35, p<0.05), muscle coordination (r=-0.45, p<0.05), and Melbourne Assessment (r=0.49, p<0.05)
Poor convergent validity with Static Fatigue Index (r=0.23, p< 0.05)
Cerebral Palsy:
(Van Meeteren 2010; n=83; mean age=19.9 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Adequate convergent validity with Manual Ability Classification System (r=-0.53, p<0.001)
Cerebral Palsy:
(Kamonseki 2017; n=21, quadriplegia=4, diplegia=15, hemiplegia=4; mean age=13.1±4.6 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Portuguese version:
Excellent convergent validity with Box and Blocks Test dominant hand (r=0.611, p<0.003)
Adequate convergent validity with grip strength (r=0.431, p< 0.05), Box and Blocks Test non-dominant hand (r=0.334, p<0.139), Purdue Pegboard Test dominant hand (r=0.588, p<0.005), both hands (r=0.504, p<0.020), and assembly task (r=0.572, p<0.007)
Cerebral Palsy:
(Arnould 2004; n=113, tetraplegia=35, diplegia=24, hemiplegia=54, mean age=10 years, range 6 -15 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Fit to the Rasch Measurement Theory (item fit, reversed thresholds, Differential Item Functioning)
Cerebral Palsy:
(Arnould 2004; n=113, tetraplegia=35, diplegia=24, hemiplegia=54, mean age=10 years, range 6 -15 years; ABILHAND-KIDS)
Adequate floor effect (3.5%)
Adequate ceiling effect (7.1%)
Cerebral Palsy:
(Bleyeheuft 2017; n=98; mean age=11.8 ± 3.3 years, range 6-19 years, ABILHAND-KIDS)
Children (6-12 years)
Large effect size= 0.92; logit change = 1.06 after intensive intervention
Small effect size=0.16; logit change = 0.15 at follow-up
Adolescents (13-19 years)
Moderate effect size=0.44; logit change = 0.71 after intensive intervention
Small effect size=0.12; logit change = 0.21 at follow-up
Transverse upper limb reduction deficiencies:
(Buffart 2007a; n=20, children with prosthesis=10, children without prosthesis=10; mean age=8.7 ± 2.9 years, range 4-12 years, ABILHAND-KIDS)
SEM=1.7
Radius deficiencies:
(Buffart 2007b; n=20; mean age=7.6 ± 2.4 years, range 4-12 years, ABILHAND-KIDS)
SEM=1.9
Transverse upper limb reduction deficiencies:
(Buffart 2007a; n=20, children with prosthesis=10, children without prosthesis=10; mean age=8.7 ± 2.9 years, range 4-12 years, ABILHAND-KIDS)
MDC=6.7 (CI95%)
Radius deficiencies:
(Buffart 2007b; n=20; mean age=7.6±2.4 years, range 4-12 years, ABILHAND-KIDS)
MDC=4.8 (CI90%)
Transverse upper limb reduction deficiencies:
(Buffart 2007a; n=20, children with prosthesis=10, children without prosthesis=10; mean age=8.7 ± 2.9 years, range 4-12 years, ABILHAND-KIDS)
Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=0.89, CI95%=0.66–0.94)
Radius deficiencies:
(Buffart 2007b; n= 20; mean age=7.6±2.4 years, range 4-12 years, ABILHAND-KIDS)
Excellent test-retest reliability (ICC=0.91, CI95%=0.69–0.98)
Convergent validity:
Transverse upper limb reduction deficiencies:
(Buffart 2007a; n=10 children with prosthesis; mean age=8.7 ± 2.9 years, range 4-12 years, ABILHAND-KIDS)
Adequate convergent validity with prosthetic wearing time for (Spearman rho=0.43, p<0.05), usefulness of prosthesis (Spearman rho= -0.43, <0.05), parent satisfaction with prosthetic functioning (Spearman rho=0.39, p<0.05)
Poor convergent validity with age of the child (Spearman rho=0.30, p<0.05), gender (Spearman rho=0 63, p<0.05)
Radius deficiencies:
(Buffart 2007b; n=20; mean age=7.6 ± 2.4 years, range 4-12 years, ABILHAND-KIDS)
Poor convergent validity with the severity of radial deficiency (Spearman rho= -0.18, p< 0.05), functional hand grip (Spearman rho=0.04, p<0.05)
Adequate convergent validity with grip force (Spearman rho=0.46, p<0.05), lateral pinch force (Spearman rho=0.41, p<0.05), parents’ satisfaction with their child’s hand function (Spearman rho= 0.49, p<0.05), and age of child (Spearman rho=0.43, p<0.05)
Transverse upper limb reduction deficiencies:
(Buffart 2007a; n=20, children with prosthesis=10, children without prosthesis=10; mean age=8.7 ± 2.9 years, range 4-12 years, ABILHAND-KIDS)
Children with prosthesis
Poor convergent validity with the Unilateral Below Elbow Test (Spearman rho=-0.12, p<0.05)
Adequate convergent validity with the therapist’s global assessment (Spearman rho=0.37, p<0.05), Unilateral Below Elbow Test (Spearman rho=0.49, p<0.05), and Assisting Hand Assessment (Spearman rho=0.32, p<0.05)
Children without prosthesis
Poor convergent validity with the therapist’s global assessment (Spearman rho=0.19, p<0.05)
Adequate convergent validity with the Unilateral Below Elbow Test (Spearman rho=0.56, p<0.05), Assisting Hand Assessment (Spearman rho=0.41, p<0.05), and Prosthetic Upper extremity Functional Index (Spearman rho=0.53, p<0.05)
Radius deficiencies:
(Buffart 2007b; n= 20; mean age= 7.6±2.4 years, range 4-12 years, ABILHAND-KIDS)
Adequate convergent validity with the therapist’s global assessment (Spearman rho=0.34, p<0.05), Unilateral Below Elbow Test (UBET) (Spearman rho=0.54, p<0.05), and Prosthetic Upper extremity Functional Index (PUFI) (Spearman rho=0.56, p<0.05)
Poor convergent validity with the Assisting Hand Assessment (Spearman rho=0.08, p<0.05)
Ahrens, H.C., Siegert, E., Tomsitz, D., Mattat, K., March, C., Worm, M., Riemekasten, G. (2016). “Digital Ulcers score: a scoring system to assess digital ulcers in patients suffering from systemic sclerosis.” Clin Exp Rheumatol, 34(Suppl. JOO):Sl42-Sl47.
Arnould, C., Penta, M., Renders, A., & Thonnard, J. L. (2004). ABILHAND-Kids A measure of manual ability in children with cerebral palsy. Neurology, 63:1045-1052.
Arnould C., Vandervelde, L., Batcho, S., Penta, M., Thonnard, J-L. (2012). “Can manual ability be measured with a generic ABILHAND scale? A cross-sectional study conducted on six diagnostic groups.” BMJ Open, 2:e001807. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001807.
Barbier, O., Penta, M., Thonnard, J-L. (2003). “Outcome evaluation of the hand and wrist according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health.” Hand Clin, 19:371-378.
Barrett, L.E., Cano, S.J., Zajicek, J.P., & Hobart, J.C. (2013). “Can the ABILHAND handle manual ability in MS?” Mult Scler J, 19:806-815.
Basílio, M.L., de Faria-Fortini, I., de Castro Magalh?es, L., de Assump??o, F.S.N., de Carvalho, A.C., & Teixeira-Salmela, L.F. (2016). “Cross-cultural validity of the Brazilian version of the ABILHAND questionnaire for chronic stroke individuals, based on Rasch analysis.” J Rehab Med, 48:6-13.
Batcho, C.S., Durez, P., & Thonnard, J-L. (2011). “Responsiveness of the abilhand questionnaire in measuring changes in rheumatoid arthritis patients.” Arthritis Care Res, 63:135-141.
Bertrand, A.M., Fournier, K., Brasey, M.G.W., Kaiser, M.L., Frischknecht, R., & Diserens, K. (2015). “Reliability of maximal grip strength measurements and grip strength recovery following a stroke.” J Hand Ther, 28:356-363.
Bleyenheuft, Y., Gordon, A. M., Rameckers, E., Thonnard, J. L., & Arnould, C. (2017). “Measuring changes of manual ability with ABILHAND‐Kids following intensive training for children with unilateral cerebral palsy.” Dev Med Child Neurol, 59(5):505-51.
Bouffioulx, ?., Arnould, C., & Thonnard, J. L. (2011). “Satisfaction with activity and participation and its relationships with body functions, activities, or environmental factors in stroke patients.” Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 92:1404-10.
Buffart, L. M., Roebroeck, M. E., Van Heijningen, V. G., Pesch-Batenburg, J. M., & Stam, H. J. (2007a). “Evaluation of arm and prosthetic functioning in children with a congenital transverse reduction deficiency of the upper limb.” J Rehabil Med, 39: 379-386.
Buffart, L. M., Roebroeck, M. E., Janssen, W. G., Hoekstra, A., Hovius, S. E., & Stam, H. J. (2007b). “Comparison of instruments to assess hand function in children with radius deficiencies.” J Hand Surg, 32:531-540.
Burger, H., Franchignoni, F., Kotnik, S., & Giordano, A. (2009). “A Rasch-based validation of a short version of ABILHAND as a measure of manual ability in adults with unilateral upper limb amputation.” Disabil Rehabil, 31: 2023-2030.
De Jong, L. D., van Meeteren, A., Emmelot, C. H., Land, N. E., & Dijkstra, P. U. (2017). “Reliability and sources of variation of the ABILHAND-Kids questionnaire in children with cerebral palsy.” Disabil Rehabil, 40: 684-689.
Durez, P., Fraselle, V., Houssiau, F., Thonnard, J-L., Nielens, H., Penta, M. (2007). “Validation of the ABILHAND questionnaire as a measure of manual ability in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.” Ann Rheum Dis, 66:1098-1105.
Ekstrand, E., Lindgren, I., Lexell, J., & Brog?rdh, C. (2014). “Test-retest reliability of the ABILHAND questionnaire in persons with chronic stroke.” PM R, 6:324-331.
Geerdink, Y., Lindeboom, R., Wolf, S., Steenbergen, B., Geurts, A. C., & Aarts, P. (2014). “Assessment of upper limb capacity in children with unilateral cerebral palsy: construct validity of a Rasch‐reduced Modified House Classification.” Dev Med Child Neurol, 56: 580-586.
Kamonseki, D. H., Cedin, L., Clemente, A. F., Peixoto, B. D. O., & Zamunér, A. R. (2017). “Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the ABILHAND-Kids for the Brazilian Portuguese.” Fisioterapia e Pesquisa, 24: 176-183.
Kirkpatrick, E. V., Pearse, J. E., Eyre, J. A., & Basu, A. P. (2013). “Motor planning ability is not related to lesion side or functional manual ability in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy.” Exp Brain Res, 231: 239-247.
Klingels, K., Demeyere, I., Jaspers, E., De Cock, P., Molenaers, G., Boyd, R., & Feys, H. (2012). “Upper limb impairments and their impact on activity measures in children with unilateral cerebral palsy.” Eur J Paediatr Neurol, 16:475-484.
Klotz, M. C., van Drongelen, S., Rettig, O., Wenger, P., Gantz, S., Dreher, T., & Wolf, S. I. (2014). “Motion analysis of the upper extremity in children with unilateral cerebral palsy—an assessment of six daily tasks.” Res Dev Disabil, 35:2950-2957.
Krumlinde-Sundholm, L., Lindkvist, B., Plantin, J. & Hoare, B. (2017). “Development of the assisting hand assessment for adults following stroke: a Rasch-built bimanual performance measure.” Disabil Rehabil, doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1396365.
Janssen M.M.H.P., Geurts A.C.H. & de Groot I.J.M. (2018). “Towards a short questionnaire for stepwise assessment of upper limb function, pain and stiffness in Duchenne muscular dystrophy.” Disabil Rehabil, 40:842-847, doi:10.1080/09638288.2016.1274336.
Makki, D., Duodu, J., & Nixon, M. (2014). “Prevalence and pattern of upper limb involvement in cerebral palsy.” J Child Orthop, 8:215-219.
Marrie, R.A., Cutter, G.R., Tyry, T., Cofield, S.S., Fox, R., Salter, A. (2017). “Upper limb impairment is associated with use of assistive devices and unemployment in multiple sclerosis.” Mult Scler Relat Disord, 13:87-92. doi:10.1016/j.msard.2017.02.013.
Meyer. S., De Bruyn, N., Krumlinde-Sundholm, L., Peeters, A., Feys, H., Thijs, V., and Verheyden, G. (2016). “Associations Between Sensorimotor Impairments in theUpper Limb at 1 Week and 6 Months After Stroke” J Neurol Phys Ther, 40:186–195.
?hrvall, A. M., Krumlinde-Sundholm, L., & Eliasson, A. C. (2013). “Exploration of the relationship between the Manual Ability Classification System and hand-function measures of capacity and performance.” Disabil Rehabil, 35:913-918.
?ksüz, ?., Alemdaroglu, I., Kilin?, M., Abao?lu, H., Demirci, C., Karahan, S., ... & Yildirim, S. A. (2017). “Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of ABILHAND-Kids’ questionnaire in a group of patients with neuromuscular disorders.” Physiother Theory Pract, 33:780-787.
Penta, M., Tesio, L., Arnould, C., Zancan, A., Thonnard, J-L. (2001). “The ABILHAND Questionnaire as a Measure of Manual Ability in Chronic Stroke Patients: Rasch-Based Validation and Relationship to Upper Limb Impairment.” Stroke, 32:1627-1634.
Penta, M., Thonnard, J-L., Tesio, L. (1998). “ABILHAND: A Rasch-Built Measure of Manual Ability.” Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 79:1038-1042.
Simone, A., Rota, V., Tesio, L., & Perucca, L. (2011). “Generic ABILHAND questionnaire can measure manual ability across a variety of motor impairments.” Int J Rehabil Res, 34:131-140.
Van Meeteren, J., van Rijn, R. M., Selles, R. W., Roebroeck, M. E., & Stam, H. J. (2007). “Grip strength parameters and functional activities in young adults with unilateral cerebral palsy compared with healthy subjects.” J Rehabil Med, 39:598-604.
Van Meeteren, J., Nieuwenhuijsen, C., De Grund, A., Stam, H. J., & Roebroeck, M. E. (2010). “Using the manual ability classification system in young adults with cerebral palsy and normal intelligence.’ Disabil Rehabil, 32:1885-1893.
Vanthuyne, M., Smith, V., Arat, S., Westhovens, R., De Keyser, F., Houssiau, F., Thonnard, J-L., Vandervelde, L. (2009) “Validation of a manual ability questionnaire in patients with systemic sclerosis.” Arthritis Rheum, 61:695-703.
Vandervelde, L., Van den Bergh, P., Penta M., Thonnard J-L. (2010). “Validation of the ABILHAND questionnaire to measure manual ability in children and adults with neuromuscular disorders.” J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr, 81:506-512.
Wang, T., Lin, K., Wu, C., Chung, C., Pei, Y., Teng, Y. (2011). “Validity, responsiveness, and clinically important difference of the ABILHAND questionnaire in patients with stroke.” Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 92:1086-1091.
We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.