Table 5 summarize of the evaluation framework of 400 point HA according to Rudman and Hannah [41]

  a. Type of results

Quantitative and qualitative

  b. Type of tasks

Covers CIF (21 items for activities and participation)

   i. Representative of ADL

Yes

   ii. Unilateral

Yes

   iii. bilateral

Yes

  c. Administration method

Observation

  d. Interpretation of results

Comprehensive: four sub-tests (mobility, strength, prehension and displacement of objects, bi manual function), quality of tasks, percentage of each sub-tests compare to the non-injured hand.

B) Specificity

Orthopaedics hand injury or pathology, adults

  a. Prefabricated

Yes

  b. Public domain

Yes

  c. Language

French/English/Portuguese/Spanish

  d. Cost

In progress

  a. Administration/scoring/interpretation

30 to 45 minutes

  b. Training for evaluator

Yes, important at the beginning

  a. Purpose understand by patients

Yes

  b. Appropriate for adults

Yes

  c. Language

French/Portuguese/Spanish/English

  d. Cultural applicability

Yes used in French and Spanish speaking countries, in Portugal for more than 10 years

  a. Administration

Yes very precise manual

  b. Scoring

Yes very precise manual

  c. Interpretation

No, the comparison is with the non-injured hand which is considered the normal hand

 B) Equipment prefabricated

Yes

 A) Descriptive

Yes (comparison with the normal hand)

 B) Evaluative

Yes (can be done at the beginning and at the end of the therapy)

 C) Predictive

No

 A) Items construction

Broad range of items, evaluative and descriptive, items selection by Rasch analysis and principal component analysis

  a. Inter-rater

ICC at 0.868

  b. Intra-rater

ICC at 0.96

  c. Test-retest

No for this version

  d. Internal consistency

Good Cronbach α at 0.886

  a. Content

Yes COSMIN recommendations fulfilled

  b. Construct

Medium correlation with JHFT (-0.573), weak to medium correlation with QuickDASH (-0.432 to -0.559), weak correlation with MOS-SF 36 PC (0.395), no correlation with MOS-SF36 MC and mean pain (0.142 and -0.166 respectively)

  c. Criterion

Not applicable no gold standard

 D) Responsiveness

MCID of 12 points proposed in our study population, not study in other populations

  a. Availability

Yes for the second sub-test (strenght) otherwise the normality is the non-injured hand which is 100% by definition. If the two hands are injured two 400 point HA should be done

b. Quality

Swiss strength norms for adults

Category 5 : patient’s perspective

Not addressed in the development

Can be evaluated with other instruments like questionnaires