Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 972

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Adult Norms for the Nine Hole Peg Test of Finger Dexterity

Mathiowetz, Virgil, Weber, Karen, Kashman, Nancy, Volland, Gloria·1985·The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research

Abstract

The purposes of this study were to establish standardized procedures for the Nine Hole Peg Test of finger dexterity, to evaluate its reliability and validity, and to establish new clinical norms based on these standardized procedures. For the reliability and validity study, 26 female occupational therapy students were tested Very high interrater reliability (right r = .97, left r = .99) was found Test-retest reliability was reported to be moderate to high (right r = .69, left r = .43) and a significant practice effect was found between the test and retest occasions. Possible variables that may have affected these results are discussed To evaluate concurrent validity, the Nine Hole Peg Test was compared to the Purdue Pegboard. The observed correlations (right r = −.61, left r = −.53) indicated that the tests are similar but not equivalent tests of finger dexterity. For the normative data study, 628 normal subjects from 20 to 94 years were tested Data were stratified by sex and by 12 age groups to allow the therapist to easily compare patients' scores to a normative population Data showed that females scored slightly better than males, finger dexterity decreased with age, and right-hand and left-hand dominant subjects demonstrated minimal differences in performance.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/153944928500500102

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Agnew P. J., 1982, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 63, 269
  2. 10.1080/15374417909532912 · DOI
  3. Jack S., 1981, Vital and Health Statistics
  4. Jebsen R. H., 1969, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 50, 311
  5. Kellor M., 1971, American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 25, 77
  6. Mathiowetz V., Kashman N., Volland G., Weber K., Dowe M., Rogers S. L. (in press). Grip and pinch strength: Normative data for adults. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
  7. Mathiowetz V., Volland G., Kashman N., Weber K. (in press). Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. American Journal of Occupational Therapy.
  8. 10.1037/h0053991 · doi:10.1037/h0053991
  9. Tiffin J., 1968, Purdue Pegboard Examiner Manual

Cited by

See all 972

Metadata

Authors
Mathiowetz, V., Weber, K., Kashman, N., & Volland, G.
Venue
The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research
Published
1985-01
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
24-38
ISSN
0276-1599 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2119526403
Cited by
972
References
0
FWCI
2.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Adult Norms for the Nine Hole Peg Test of Finger Dexterity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/153944928500500102
The paper
Mathiowetz, V., Weber, K., Kashman, N., & Volland, G. (1985). Adult Norms for the Nine Hole Peg Test of Finger Dexterity. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/153944928500500102

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.