Purdue Pegboard Test (PPT)

Overview
A literature search was conducted to identify all relevant publications on the psychometric properties of the Purdue Pegboard Test (PPT). Several studies have been conducted, however only one study was specific to clients with stroke. 
Reliability

Internal consistency:
No studies have examined the internal consistency of the PPT in clients with stroke.

Test-retest:
Buddenberg and Davis (1999) examined the 1-week test-retest reliability of the PPT using the one-trial and three-trial administration procedures, in 47 healthy participants. The three-trial administration method was found to have excellent test-retest reliability for all subtests (ICC=0.82, 0.89, 0.85, 0.89 and 0.81 for the right hand, left hand, both hands, R+L+B and assembly subtests respectively). The one-trial administration method was found to have poor to adequate test-retest reliability using Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC=0.37, 0.61, 0.58, 0.70, 0.51 for the right hand, left hand, both hands, R+L+B and assembly subtests respectively).

Several studies have investigated the test-retest reliability of the one-trial administration method of the PPT in healthy participants. The following chart has been adapted from Buddenberg and Davis (1999).

Reliability Coefficients Reported for One-Trial Administrations of the Purdue Pegboard Test

Subtests

Tiffin & Asher (1948)

Bass & Stucki (1951)

Tiffin (1968)

Reddon, Gill, Gauk & Maerz (1988) (men/women)

Desrosiers, Bravo & Dutil (1995)

Right hand

0.63

0.67

0.68

0.63/0.76

0.66

Left hand

0.60

0.66

0.65

0.64/0.79

0.66

Both hands

0.68

0.71

0.73

0.67/0.81

0.81

Right + Left + Both hands

0.71

0.79

0.71

NR

0.90

Assembly

0.68

0.72

0.67

0.81/0.83

0.84

NR=not reported

Desrosiers, Hebert, Bravo and Dutil (1995) investigated the test-retest reliability of the PPT in 35 healthy individuals aged 60-89 years with no-known upper-limb impairment. Each individual completed the PPT on 2 occasions with approximately 1 week between testing. Test-retest reliability, calculated using ICC was found to be adequate to excellent for the 5 subtests (ICC=0.66, 0.83, 0.81, 0.90 and 0.84 for Right hand, Left hand, Both hands, Right+Left+Both hands and Assembly subtests respectively). Scores from the second administration were higher, indicating a practice effect.

Intra-rater:
No studies have examined the intra-rater reliability of the PPT in clients with stroke.

Inter-rater:
No studies have examined the inter-rater reliability of the PPT in clients with stroke.

Validity

Content:
No studies have examined the content validity of the PPT in clients with stroke.

Criterion:
Concurrent:
No studies have examined the concurrent validity of the PPT in clients with stroke.

Predictive:
No studies have examined the predictive validity of the PPT in clients with stroke.

Construct:
Convergent/Discriminant:
No studies have examined the convergent or discriminant validity of the PPT in clients with stroke.

Known Groups:
Costa, Vaughan, Levita & Farber (1963) examined the known groups validity of Purdue Pegboard subtests (Right, Left and Both hands) in 54 clients with brain damage resulting from neoplasms, traumatic injury or degenerative, vascular or infectious diseases; and 26 clients with peripheral nervous system lesions or lesions below the level of the thoracic spine (control group). Clinical neurological examination, electroencephalography and neuroradiographic procedures were used to confirm diagnosis. The PPT accurately identified clients below the age of 60 years as having brain damage if one or more of the following were found on scoring: left score < 11; right score < 13; both hands score < 10; or left score > right score +3; and a lesion on the left if left score > right score, and on the right if right score > left score + 3. The PPT accurately identified clients above the age of 60 years as having brain damage if one or more of the following were found on scoring: left score < 10; right score < 10; both hands score < 8; or left > right +3; and a lesion on the left if left > right, and on the right if right > left + 3. If the client’s scores accurately classified the client as having brain damage but neither left or right lesions were identified based on the scores, the brain damage is categoried as bilateral. The above PPT cutoff scores were found to have a 70 percent accuracy for lateralization and a 90 percent accuracy for brain damage without regard to lateralization.

Sensitivity/specificity:
No studies have examined the sensitivity/specificity of the PPT in clients with stroke.

Responsiveness:
No studies have examined the responsiveness of the PPT in clients with stroke.

References
  • Ashford, S., Slade, M., Malaprade, F., Turner-Stokes, L. (2008). Evaluation of functional outcome measures for the hemiparetic upper limb: A systematic review. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 40, 787-795
  • Buddenberg, L.A. & Davis, C. (1999). Test-retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard Test. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54(5), 555-558
  • Costa, L.D., Vaughan, H.G., Levita, E. & Farber, N. (1963). Purdue Pegboard as a predictor of the presence and laterality of cerebral lesions. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 27(2), 133-137
  • Desrosiers, J., Hebert, R, Bravo, G. and Dutil, E. (1995). The Purdue Pegboard Test: Normative data for people aged 60 and over. Disability and Rehabilitation, 17(5), 217-224