Purdue Pegboard Test (PPT)

Overview
A literature search was conducted to identify all relevant publications on the psychometric properties of the Purdue Pegboard Test. 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 Purdue Pegboard in clients with stroke. Intra-rater reliability No studies have examined the intra-rater reliability of the Purdue Pegboard in clients with stroke. Inter-rater reliability No studies have examined the inter-rater reliability of the Purdue Pegboard in clients with stroke. Test-retest reliability Buddenberg and Davis (1999) examined the 1-week test-retest reliability (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 Purdue Pegboard Test 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
Interclass Correlation Coefficient

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

ICC= Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, NR=not reported Desrosiers, Hebert, Bravo and Dutil (1995) investigated the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (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.

Validity

Content validity No studies have examined the content validity of the Purdue Pegboard in clients with stroke.

Criterion validity
Concurrent validity
No studies have examined the concurrent validity of the Purdue Pegboard in clients with stroke. Predictive validity No studies have examined the predictive validity of the Purdue Pegboard in clients with stroke.

Sensitivity/specificity No studies have examined the sensitivity/specificity of the Purdue Pegboard in clients with stroke.

Construct validity
Convergent/discriminant validity
No studies have examined the convergent/discriminant validity of the Purdue Pegboard 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 Purdue Pegboard Test 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 Purdue Pegboard Test 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 Purdue Pegboard cutoff scores were found to have a 70 percent accuracy for lateralization and a 90 percent accuracy for brain damage without regard to lateralization.

Responsiveness
No studies have examined the responsiveness of the Purdue Pegboard Test 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