Assessing manual dexterity: Comparing the WorkAbility Rate of Manipulation Test with the Minnesota Manual Dexterity Test.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. INTRODUCTION: The WorkAbility Rate of Manipulation Test (WRMT), an adaptation of the Minnesota Manual Dexterity Test (MMDT), contains a revised board and protocols to improve its utility for therapy or fitness assessment. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To describe the development and preliminary psychometric properties of WRMT. METHODS: Sixty-six healthy participants completed MMDT and WRMT in a random order followed by a user experience survey. We compared tests using repeated-measures analysis of variance, test-retest reliability, and examined agreement between tests. RESULTS: Despite the similarities of these 2 instruments, the different administration protocols resulted in statistically different score distributions (P < .001). Results supported good test-retest reliability of WRMT (placing test ICC = 0.88-0.90 and turning test ICC = 0.68-0.82). The WRMT correlated moderately with MMDT (r = 0.81 in placing test and r = 0.44-0.57 in turning test). Bland-Altman plot showed that the differences in completion time were 3.8 seconds between placing tests and 19.6 (both hands), 0.3 (right hand), and 3.9 (left hand) seconds between turning tests. Overall, participants felt that the instruction of WRMT was easier to follow (44%) and preferred its setup, color, and depth of the test board (49%). Time required to complete 1 panel of 20 disks correlated highly with the time needed to finish a complete trial of 60 disks in both MMDT (r = 0.91-0.97) and WRMT (r = 0.88-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Caution is warranted in comparing scores from these 2 test variants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b.

Reliability and concurrent validity of the Active Movement Scale (AMS) in adults with musculoskeletal disorders.

BACKGROUND: The Active Movement Scale (AMS) is a brief screen for identifying movement impairments affecting functional task performance. OBJECTIVE: To assess inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, floor and ceiling effects, and concurrent validity of the AMS in adults with musculoskeletal disorders. METHODS: Fifty-five subjects (mean age: 61.3±15.3 years) transitioning from physical therapy attended two sessions. The 14-item AMS was assessed by two therapists, resulting in a total score (AMST) and two sub-scores: upper body (AMSU) and lower body (AMSL). Moreover, subjects completed PROMIS Physical Function-10a (PPF), Lifestyle Physical Function (LPF), Cardio Activity Level (CAL) surveys, Two Square Agility Test (TSAT), WorkAbility Rate of Manipulation Turning (WRMT) and Placing (WRMP), Grip Strength (GS), 10-Meter Walk Usual (GSU) and Fast (GSF) pace, and Grooved Pegboard Placing (GPP) and Remove (GPR) tests. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability coefficients for AMST, AMSU, and AMSL were 0.96, 0.92, and 0.96, respectively, with individual item reliability ranging from 0.58 to 1.0. Test-retest reliability for these assessments yielded coefficients of 0.93, 0.84, and 0.94, with individual item reliability ranging from 0.47 to 0.88. No floor effects were observed, but mild ceiling effects were noted. AMST showed a high correlation with LPF (r = 0.72) and moderate correlation with PPF (r = 0.64) surveys. AMSU had moderate correlations with GPP (r = 0.61) and WRMP (r = 0.57) tests, while AMSL correlated moderately with GSF (r = 0.55) and TSAT (r = 0.50) tests. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of the reliability and validity of AMS in adults with musculoskeletal disorders to support transitions between rehabilitation and fitness programs.