Skip to main content

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

From: Prospective multicentre validation study of a new standardised version of the 400-point hand assessment

Category 1 : Clinical utility
A) Clinical applicability
  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
C) Availability
  a. Prefabricated Yes
  b. Public domain Yes
  c. Language French/English/Portuguese/Spanish
  d. Cost In progress
D) Time demands
  a. Administration/scoring/interpretation 30 to 45 minutes
  b. Training for evaluator Yes, important at the beginning
E) Acceptability to patients
  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
Category 2 : Standardization
 A) Instructions
  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
Category 3 ; Purpose
 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
Category 4 : Psychometric properties
 A) Items construction Broad range of items, evaluative and descriptive, items selection by Rasch analysis and principal component analysis
 B) Reliability
  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
 C) Validity
  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
 E) Norms
  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