Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test

Last Updated

July 26, 2023

Purpose

The Jebsen Taylor Hand Function Test (JTHFT) is a standardized and objective measure of fine and gross motor hand functions that uses simulated activities of daily living (ADLs).

Link to Instrument

instrument details

Acronym JTHFT

Area of Assessment

Activities of Daily Living
Upper Extremity Function

Assessment Type

Performance Measure

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Cost Description

A test kit is sold commercially through multiple vendors, which usually includes instructions, all items needed to perform seven subtests, a carrying bag, and pad of 50 blank record forms. Cost is generally in the $300-$500 range. There is no developer website to purchase from, contact for permission to use, or licensing fee.

CDE Status

Supplemental: Myotonic Muscular Dystrophy (DM), Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), and SCI-Pediatric (age 6 years and over).

Exploratory: Cerebral Palsy (CP), Congenital Muscular Dystrophy (CMD), Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), Friedreich's Ataxia (FA), Neuromuscular Disease (NMD), and Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA).

Diagnosis/Conditions

Arthritis + Joint Conditions
Brain Injury Recovery
Spinal Cord Injury
Stroke Recovery

Musculoskeletal Conditions

Stroke

Non-Specific Patient Population

Cerebral Palsy

7 subtests, performed on both non-dominant and dominant hands:
1) Writing a 24-letter, 3rd grade reading level difficulty sentence
2) Turning over 3x5-inch cards
3) Picking up small common objects (e.g. pennies, paper clips, bottle caps) and placing them in a container
4) Stacking checkers
5) Simulated feeding
6) Moving light objects (e.g. empty cans)
7) Moving heavy objects (e.g. 1lb weighted cans)
Subtest score = time (seconds) to complete task
Total score = sum of times for each subtest
Maximum time allotted per subtest is 120 seconds
Lower score = greater function
Each item performed with each hand separately – non-dominant hand first.
Measures unilateral hand function.
Assesses speed, not quality of performance.

Number of Items

7 subtests (see Key Descriptions)

Stopwatch
Chair (18” seat height)
Desk/table (30" high)
Black ball point pen, four 8x11” sheets of unruled white paper stacked and fastened to a clipboard
Sentences typed in all capital letters and centered on a 5x8” index card on a bookstand
Five 3x5” index cards (ruled on one side only)
Empty 1 pound coffee can
Two 1” paper clips
2 regular sized bottle caps (1” diameter)
2 U.S. pennies
5 kidney beans (~5/8” long)
1 regular teaspoon
Wooden board (41 ½” long, 11 ¼” wide, ¾” thick), “C” clamp, plywood (20” long, 2” wide, ½” thick) glued to the board (see Jebsen 1969 for details)
Four standard size (1 ¼” diameter) red wooden checkers
Five No. 303 cans

15-45 minutes

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Required Training Description

No required training but can be performed by both clinicians and parents.

Child

6 - 12

years

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Dorian Rose, PT, PhD and the StrokEdge task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA in 2011 and Cara Leone Weibsach, PT, DPT, Wendy Romney, PT, DPT, NCS, and the SCI EDGE task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA in 4/2012. Updated 7/26/2023 by UIC OT students Malynn Tu, Madz Linatoc, Jocelyn Tam, and Andreea Guler under the direction of Susan Magasi, PhD, Associate Professor, Departments of Occupational Therapy and Disability Studies, UIC.

Body Part

Upper Extremity

ICF Domain

Body Function
Activity
Participation

Measurement Domain

Motor

Professional Association Recommendation

Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association’s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson’s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (PD EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (Vestibular EDGE) are listed below. These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.

For detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit: http://www.neuropt.org/go/healthcare-professionals/neurology-section-outcome-measures-recommendations

Abbreviations:
HR	Highly Recommend
R	Recommend
LS / UR	Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group / Unable to Recommend
NR	Not Recommended

Recommendations for use based on acuity level of the patient:

Acute

(CVA < 2 months post)

(SCI < 1 month post)

(Vestibular < 6 weeks post)

Subacute

(CVA 2 to 6 months)

(SCI 3 to 6 months)

Chronic

(> 6 months)

SCI EDGE

LS / UR

StrokEDGE

Recommendations based on level of care in which the assessment is taken:

Acute Care

Inpatient Rehabilitation

Skilled Nursing Facility

Outpatient

Rehabilitation

Home Health

StrokEDGE

Recommendations based on SCI AIS Classification:

	AIS A/B	AIS C/D
SCI EDGE	LS / UR	LS / UR

Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:

	Students should learn to administer this tool? (Y/N)	Students should be exposed to tool? (Y/N)	Appropriate for use in intervention research studies? (Y/N)	Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N)
SCI EDGE	No	No	Yes	Not reported
StrokEDGE	No	Yes	Yes	Not reported

Considerations

Bovend’ Eerdt et al 2004 reports validity and reliability of a modified Jebsen Test (3 of the subtest combined into 1 test).
Assesses hand function with understanding that proximal upper extremity function will influence ability to place and position the hand. Proximal weakness and forearm rotation limitations may influence hand function outcomes.
Jebsen is not recommended for use in hand neuroprosthesis outcomes for individuals with C5 tetraplegia.
May not detect changes of intrinsic hand muscles and allows for compensatory trunk and shoulder movement to complete tasks.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Healthy individuals: (Sığırtmaç, İ. C., & Öksüz, Ç., 2019; n = 162, female = 98; mean age = 38.4 (10.0), age range = 18-65; no neurological, orthopedic, or systemic disease affecting hand function)

SEM for total score, dominant hand (n = 162): 2.28
SEM for total score, non-dominant hand (n = 162): 3.65

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Healthy individuals: (Sığırtmaç, İ. C., & Öksüz, Ç., 2019; n = 162; MDC calculated as MDC = 1.96 x (SEM x Square Root (2)))

MDC at 95% CI for dominant hand total score: 6.32
MDC at 95% CI for non-dominant hand total score: 10.12

Cut-Off Scores

Healthy individuals and patients with hand injuries: (Sığırtmaç, İ. C., & Öksüz, Ç, 2019; n = 305 (162 healthy individuals and 143 patients with hand injuries—female = 79, mean age = 40.4 (12.9), injury diagnoses: fracture (n = 53), nerve injuries (n = 35), tendon injuries (n = 29), ligament injuries (n = 11), multiple trauma (n = 10), and other injuries (n = 5); Cutoff values determined by ROC curve)

Cutoff value for Total score, non-injured hand: 33.10 s (sensitivity: 0.755; specificity: 0.895, AUC: 0.88)
Cutoff value for Total score, injured hand: 37.08 s (sensitivity: 0.713; specificity: 0.815, AUC: 0.83)

Normative Data

Normal:

(Hackel et al, 1992; n = 121 “normal” men and women living independently in the community; mean age = 74.6(7.7) years)

Mean Subtest Scores for women in seconds (± standard deviation) by age group

Subtest	60-69 years (n = 19)		70-79 years (n = 31)		80-89 years (n = 19)
	Dominant	Non-dominant	Dominant	Non-dominant	Dominant	Non-dominant
Writing	12.41±2.82^a	35.99±11.28^a	13.43±2.64^a	40.13±7.84^a	18.19±4.83	60.39±26.16
Card turning	4.79±1.26^a	5.62±1.84^b	5.33±1.06^b	6.05±1.07^b	6.28±1.78	7.25±2.15
Small, common objects	6.62±2.10	6.73±1.31^b	6.91±1.29	7.07±1.44^b	7.44±1.56	8.09±1.70
Simulated feeding	6.94±1.21^c,d	8.05±1.38^a,c	8.07±1.76	10.23±2.99	7.92±1.49	10.09±3.14
Checkers	4.55±1.30^b	5.21±1.47	4.64±1.01^b	5.41±1.24	5.56±1.45	5.94±1.24
Large, light objects	3.85±0.72^b,d	4.01±0.74^a,d	4.35±0.81	4.64±0.87	4.39±0.79	4.88±1.03
Large, heavy objects	3.84±0.74^a	4.04±0.76^a,d	4.26±0.82	4.63±0.87	4.51±0.66	4.91±0.81

^a significant difference from 80-89 years age group (p < 0.01)
^b significant difference from 80-89 years age group (p < 0.05)
^c significant difference from 70-79 years age group (p < 0.01)
^d significant difference from 70-79 years age group (p < 0.05)

Mean Subtest Scores for Men in seconds (± standard deviation) per age group

Subtest	60-69 years (n = 17)		70-79 years (n = 20)		80-89 years (n = 15)
	Dominant	Non-dominant	Dominant	Non-dominant	Dominant	Non-dominant
Writing	15.31±5.38^a	36.56±9.87^a	17.22±4.59^b	43.29±10.27^b	20.53±4.69	54.54±28.21
Card turning	4.74±1.20^a	5.71±1.60^a	5.25±1.18^a	6.35±1.60^b	7.108±2.56	7.90±3.38
Small, common objects	6.72±1.39^a	7.48±2.20	7.10±1.03^a	7.92±1.39	9.17±3.00	8.34±1.67
Simulated feeding	7.32±0.99^a	9.24±1.72^b	7.64±0.86^a	9.49±1.28^b	9.39±2.02	11.28±2.49
Checkers	4.19±0.93^a	5.46±2.83^b	4.55±0.91^a	5.27±0.81^a	6.69±2.09	6.72±1.56
Large, light objects	3.69±0.71^a,c	3.94±0.69^a	4.20±0.70^a	4.53±0.82^b	4.96±0.88	5.31±1.35
Large, heavy objects	3.62±0.73^a	4.03±0.78^a	4.00±0.76^a	4.39±0.67^a	4.90±0.90	5.23±1.01

^a significant difference from 80-89 years age group (p < 0.01)
^b significant difference from 80-89 years age group (p < 0.05)
^c significant difference from 70-79 years age group (p < 0.05)

(Jebsen et al 1969; n = 360; age 20-94 years)
Mean Subtest Score for Women in seconds (± standard deviation) by age group

Subtest	20-59 years (n=120)		60-94 years (n=30)
	Dominant	Non-dominant	Dominant	Non-dominant
Writing	11.7±2.1	30.2±8.6	15.7±4.7	38.9±14.9
Card turning	4.3±1.4	4.8±1.1	4.9±1.2	5.5±1.1
Small, common objects	5.5±0.8	6.0±1.0	6.6±1.3	6.6±0.8
Simulated feeding	6.7±1.1	8.0±1.6	6.8±1.1	8.7±2.0
Checkers	3.3±0.6	3.8±0.7	3.6±0.6	4.4±1.0
Large, light objects	3.1±0.5	3.3±0.6	3.5±0.6	3.4±0.6
Large, heavy objects	3.2±0.5	3.3±0.5	3.5±0.6	3.7±0.7

Mean Subtest Scores for Men in seconds (± standard deviation) by age groups

Subtest	20-59 years		60-94 years
	Dominant	Non-dominant	Dominant	Non-dominant
Writing	12.2±3.5	32.3±11.8	19.5±7.5	48.2±19.1
Card turning	4.0±0.9	4.5±0.9	5.3±1.6	6.1±2.2
Small, common objects	5.9±1.0	6.2±0.9	6.8±1.2	7.9±1.9
Simulated feeding	6.4±0.9	7.9±1.3	6.9±0.9	8.6±1.5
Checkers	3.3±0.7	3.8±0.6	3.8±0.7	4.6±1.0
Large, light objects	3.0±0.4	3.2±0.6	3.6±0.7	3.9±0.7
Large, heavy objects	3.0±0.5	3.1±0.4	3.5±0.7	3.8±0.7

Test/Retest Reliability

Stable hand disorders due to tetraplegia:

(Jebsen et al., 1969; n = 26; n = 6, post poliomyelitis n = 1, cerebral palsy n = 4, stroke n = 5, rheumatoid arthritis n = 4, burn n = 1, congenital anomaly n = 2, trauma n = 1, polyneuropathy n = 1, severe degenerative joint disease n = 1)

Excellent Test-Retest Reliability for all subtests for dominant hand except writing (r = 0.91-0.99) and non-dominant hand except feeding and large, light objects (r = 0.78-0.92)
Adequate Test-Retest Reliability for dominant hand writing (r = 0.67) and non-dominant hand feeding (r = 0.60) and large light objects (r = 0.67)
Absent practice effect (p < 0.05)

Correlation Coefficients for Test-Retest Reliability

Test	Dominant Hand	Non-dominant Hand
Writing	0.67	0.84
Card turning	0.91	0.78
Small, common object	0.93	0.85
Simulated Feeding	0.92	0.60
Checkers	0.99	0.91
Large, light objects	0.89	0.67
Large, heavy objects	0.89	0.92

All significant at the p < 0.01 level

Healthy individuals: (Sığırtmaç, İ. C., & Öksüz, Ç., 2019)

Excellent test-retest reliability for both dominant and nondominant hand
- Dominant hand, total score: (ICC = 0.95)
- Non-dominant hand, total score: (ICC = 0.89)
Acceptable test-retest reliability for lifting large light object with dominant hand (ICC = 0.77)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Normal:

(Hackel et al,1992)

Excellent Intra-rater reliability (r = 0.84 and 0.85, p < 0.05) for 2 raters
Excellent Inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.82 – 1.00)

Subtest	Dominant Hand	Non-dominant Hand
Writing	1.00	1.00
Card turning	0.82	0.98
Small, common objects	0.95	1.00
Feeding	0.99	1.00
Checkers	0.99	0.98
Large, light objects	0.99	0.99
Large, heavy objects	0.99	0.99

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Status Post Hand Surgery:

(Davis Sears and Chung, 2010; n = 111 (RA n = 37, OA n = 10, CTS n = 18, and Fx n = 46); evaluated preoperatively and 9-12 months post op; Michigan Hand Function Test (MHQ) used as reference standard)

Poor correlation with MHQ total scores for RA, OA, CTS, Fx (r =0.19, 0.04, 0.59, 0.36, respectively)
Poor correlation with MHQ subtests(ADL, function, work, satisfaction) for RA, OA, Fx (r = 0.10-0.41) and CTS for work & satisfaction (r = 0.38, 0.56 respectively)
Adequate correlation moderate for CTS for ADL and function (r = 0.68, 0.69, respectively)

Construct Validity

Discriminant validity:

(Davis Sears and Chung, 2010)

Poor discriminative validity for predicting positive or negative outcomes in hand function as measured by the MHQ outcomes (positive = change in MHQ score > 20; negative = change in MHQ score ≤ 20) for RA, OA, CTS, and Fx (ROC area under curve = 0.52, 0.58, 0.66, 0.59, respectively)
Poor discriminative validity for discriminating individuals with high or low MHQ scores (high = MHQ >75; low = MHQ ≤ 75) for RA, OA, and CTS all conditions except distal radius fracture (ROC area under curve = 0.48, 0.0, 0.65, respectively with 95% CI)
Adequate discriminative validity for determining high versus low score on MHQ (ROC area under curve = 0.76), indicating a 76% probability of predicting high or low test score on the MHQ

Convergent validity:

Patients with Hand Injuries: (Sığırtmaç, İ. C., & Öksüz, Ç., 2019)

Adequate convergent validity of JTHFT total score with DASH-T score for injured hand (r = 0.39) and uninjured hand (r = 0.35)
Adequate convergent validity of JTHFT total score with grip strength of injured hand (r = -0.33) for injured hand total score
Poor convergent validity of JTHFT total score with grip strength of injured hand (r = -0.21) for non-injured hand total score)
Poor convergent validity with grip strength of uninjured hand (r = -0.03) for injured hand score, r = -0.03 for non-injured hand score)

Responsiveness

Effect Size:

(Davis Sears & Chung, 2010)

Small change for CTS (ES = 0.05)
Moderate change for Fx, RA, and OA (ES = 0.35, 0.47, 0.67, respectively)
Effect size was greater for detecting change in and hand function following hand surgery using the MHQ (0.74-1.30) for all groups than Jebsen

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Chronic Stroke (Berardi et al., 2019; n = 48; mean age = 69.88 (13.36) years; Time Post CVA = >1 year since the acute event; post-stroke adults with chronic hemiplegia or hemiparesis; subjects required to have extension of the wrist, movement of the thumb, and at least two phalanges => 10 degrees; Italian sample using Italian language version, JTHFT-IT; SEM calculated)

SEM for all participants (n = 48, (dominant hand): 8.28
SEM for all participants (n = 48, (non-dominant hand): 6.40

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Chronic Stroke (Berardi et al., 2019; JTHFT-IT; MDC calculated)

MDC for all participants (n = 48, (dominant hand): 22.95
MDC for all participants (n = 48, (non-dominant hand): 17.74

Normative Data

Non-Specific Patient Population (Jebsen et al., 1969; n = 360; age range = 20-94 years)

Normative data established in 1969 (Jebsen et al 1969; n = 360; age 20-94 years)

Mean (SD) times to complete the seven items of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test—Males age 20-59 years

Task	Dominant hand	Non-dominant hand
Writing	12.2 (3.5)	32.3 (11.8)
Card turning	4.0 (0.9)	4.5 (0.9)
Small objects	5.9 (1.0)	6.2 (0.9)
Simulated feeding	6.4 (0.9)	7.9 (1.3)
Checkers	3.3 (0.7)	3.8 (0.6)
Large, light objects	3.0 (0.4)	3.2 (0.6)
Large, heavy objects	3.0 (0.5)	3.1 (0.4)

Mean (SD) times to complete the seven items of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test—Males age 60-94 years

Task	Dominant hand	Non-dominant hand
Writing	19.5 (7.5)	48.2 (19.1)
Card turning	5.3 (1.6)	6.1 (2.2)
Small objects	6.8 (1.2)	7.9 (1.9)
Simulated feeding	6.9 (0.9)	8.6 (1.5)
Checkers	3.8 (0.7)	4.6 (1.0)
Large, light objects	3.6 (0.7)	3.9 (0.7)
Large, heavy objects	3.5 (0.7)	3.8 (0.7)

Mean (SD) times to complete the seven items of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test—Females age 20-59 years

Task	Dominant hand	Non-dominant hand
Writing	11.7 (2.1)	30.2 (8.6)
Card turning	4.3 (1.4)	4.8 (1.1)
Small objects	5.5 (0.8)	6.0 (1.0)
Simulated feeding	6.7 (1.1)	8.0 (1.6)
Checkers	3.3 (0.6)	3.8 (0.7)
Large, light objects	3.1 (0.5)	3.3 (0.6)
Large, heavy objects	3.2 (0.5)	3.3 (0.5)

Mean (SD) times to complete the seven items of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test—Females age 60-94 years

Task	Dominant hand	Non-dominant hand
Writing	15.7 (4.7)	38.9 (14.9)
Card turning	4.9 (1.2)	5.5 (1.1)
Small objects	6.6 (1.3)	6.6 (0.8)
Simulated feeding	6.8 (1.1)	8.7 (2.0)
Checkers	3.6 (0.6)	4.4 (1.0)
Large, light objects	3.5 (0.6)	3.4 (0.6)
Large, heavy objects	3.5 (0.6)	3.7 (0.7)

Internal Consistency

Chronic Stroke (Berardi et al., 2019; JTHFT-IT)

Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96* for the dominant hand.
Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92* for the non-dominant hand.

*Scores higher than 0.9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Chronic Stroke (Berardi et al., 2019; JTHFT-IT)

Concurrent validity (dynamometer): Pearson’s coefficient showed statistically significant values, mainly for the dominant hand.
- Non-dominant hand:
  - Excellent correlation for turning over card (r = -0.61), picking up small objects (r = -0.68), simulated feeding (r = -0.66), stacking checkers (r = -0.64), picking up large light cans (r = -0.63), and picking up large heavy cans (r = -0.64)
  - Adequate correlation for writing a short sentence (r = -0.48)
- Dominant hand:
  - Adequate correlation for turning over a card (r = -0.34), picking up small objects (r = -0.44), simulated feeding (r = -0.46), stacking checkers (r = -0.46), picking up large light cans (r = -0.40), and picking up large heavy cans (r = -0.40).
  - Poor correlation for writing a short sentence (r = -0.25).

Construct Validity

Chronic Stroke (Berardi et al., 2019; JTHFT-IT)

Construct validity (WMFT-IT-TIME): Pearson’s coefficient showed statistically significant values, mainly for items relating to the arm and hand (items 9-16) of the dominant hand.

Responsiveness

Stroke:

(Beebe and Lang, 2009)

Moderate responsiveness between 1‐3 mo post‐stroke (0.69) and between 1‐6 mo post‐stroke (0.73)

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Cerebral Palsy: (Araneda et al, 2019; n = 154; female = 78 (51%); mean age in years:months (SD) = 9:6 (3:4); unilateral n = 108 (70%); bileratal n = 46 (30%); mean time duration (SD) 14 days = [1] (range 13–14d); 120 days = [2] (range 30–210d); USA and Belgium sample; SEM calculated)

SEM group approach for more affected hand (within 14 days, n=38): 0.26
SEM group approach for less affected hand (within 14 days, n=38): 0.25
SEM group approach for more affected hand (within 120 days, n=29): 0.93
SEM group approach for less affected hand (within 120 days, n=29): 1.69

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Cerebral Palsy: (Araneda et al., 2019; USA and Belgium sample; MDC calculated)

MDC group approach for more affected hand (n = 38): 0.72
MDC group approach for less affected hand (n = 38): 0.69
MDC group approach for more affected hand (n = 29): 2.58
MDC group approach for less affected hand (n = 29): 4.69

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Cerebral Palsy: (Araneda et al., 2019; USA and Belgium sample)

MCID = 54.7 seconds on the more affected hand
MCID = 20.9 seconds on the less affected hand

Normative Data

Cerebral Palsy: (Araneda et al, 2019; n = 154; mean age in years:months (SD) = 9:6(3:4) years; Mean time duration scores within 14 days and 120 days; USA and Belgium sample)

(n = 67) assess the stability of the measures

n	SD	Days
n = 38	1	Range 13-14 days
n = 29	2	Range 30-210 days

Duration 2-3 weeks

1st Eval	Median	25th-75th Percentile
More affected hand	281.09	99.92 - 623.89
Less affected hand	55.76	41.16 - 102.81
2nd Eval
More affected hand	204.37	83.32 - 498.81
Less affected hand	51.32	41.22 - 88.15

Test/Retest Reliability

Cerebral Palsy: (Araneda et al., 2019; USA and Belgium sample)

Acceptable test-retest reliability for both hands for the whole sample approach (ICC > 0.884)
Acceptable test-retest reliability for both hands for the group (younger and older) approach with retest within 14 days (ICC > 0.932) and for the more affected hand with retest within 120 days (ICC = 0.784)

Responsiveness

Cerebral Palsy: (Araneda et al., 2019; n = 87; USA and Belgium sample)

Whole sample approach:

Significant difference between Test 1 and Test 2 for the more affected hand (t = -4.673, p < 0.001)
Moderate changes on the more affected hand (effect size = 0.472)
Small changes on the less affected hand (effect size = 0.049)

Group approach by age:

Large changes on more affected hand for younger (age 5-10 years) age group (n = 56, effect size = 0.502, p < 0.001)
Moderate changes on more affected hand for older (age 11-17) age group (n = 31, effect size = 0.432, p = 0.002)

Group analysis by topography:

Moderate changes in the more affected hand for unilateral impairments (n = 70, effect size = 0.489, p = 0.001)
Large changes on the more affected hand for bilateral impairments (n = 17, effect size = 0.594, p = 0.005)

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Muscular Dystrophy: (Artilheiro et al., 2018; n = 50; Mean age (SD) = 20.8 (4.96) years; Brazilian sample)

Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test Subtest (Hand)	SEM
1 ND (Non-Dominant)	4.20
1 D (Dominant)	0.00
2 ND	0.41
2 D	0.06
3 ND	0.52
3 D	0.84
4 ND	0.26
4 D	0.19
5 ND	0.09
5 D	0.10
6 ND	0.09
6 D	0.13

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Muscular Dystrophy: (Artilheiro et al., 2018) Excellent interrater reliability for all subtests: (ICC = 0.772-1.000):
Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test Subtest (Hand)	ICC
1 ND (Non-Dominant)	0.772
1 D (Dominant)	1.000
2 ND	0.998
2 D	0.997
3 ND	0.983
3 D	0.903
4 ND	0.999
4 D	0.999
5 ND	0.997
5 D	0.992
6 ND	0.999
6 D	0.995

Internal Consistency

Muscular Distrophy: (Artilheiro et al., 2018)

Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.98)

Bibliography

Agnew, P. J. and Maas, F. (1982). "Hand function related to age and sex." Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 63(6): 269-271. Find it on PubMed

Araneda, R., Ebner-Karestinos, D., Paradis, J., Saussez, G., Friel, K.M., Gordon, A.M., & Bleyenheuft, Y. (2019). Reliability and responsiveness of the Jebsen-Taylor Test of Hand Function and the Box and Block Test for children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol, 61: 1182-1188. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.14184

Artilheiro, M. C., Fávero, F. M., Caromano, F. A., Oliveira, A. de S. B., Carvas, N., Voos, M. C., & Sá, C. dos S. C. de. (2018). Reliability, validity and description of timed performance of the Jebsen–Taylor Test in patients with muscular dystrophies. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 22(3), 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2017.09.010

Beebe, J. A. and Lang, C. E. (2009). "Relationships and responsiveness of six upper extremity function tests during the first 6 months of recovery after stroke." Journal of neurologic physical therapy: JNPT 33(2): 96. Find it on Pubmed

Berardi, A., Saffioti, M., Tofani, M., Nobilia, M., Culicchia, G., Valente, D., Servadio, A., & Galeoto, G. (2019). Internal consistency and validity of the Jebsen-Taylor hand function test in an Italian population with hemiparesis. NeuroRehabilitation, 45(3), pp. 331–339. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-192867

Bovend'Eerdt, T. J., Dawes, H., et al. (2004). "Evaluation of the Modified Jebsen Test of Hand Function and the University of Maryland Arm Questionnaire for Stroke." Clinical Rehabilitation 18(2): 195-202. Find it on PubMed

Colyer, R. A. and Kappelman, B. (1981). "Flexor pollicis longus tenodesis in tetraplegia at the sixth cervical level. A prospective evaluation of functional gain." Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 63(3): 376-379. Find it on PubMed

Davis Sears, E. and Chung, K. C. (2010). "Validity and responsiveness of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test." J Hand Surg Am 35(1): 30-37. Find it on PubMed

Hackel, M. E., Wolfe, G. A., et al. (1992). "Changes in hand function in the aging adult as determined by the Jebsen Test of Hand Function." Physical Therapy 72(5): 373-377. Find it on PubMed

Jebsen, R. H., Taylor, N., Trieschmann, R. B., Trotter, M. J., & Howard, L. A. (1969). An objective and standardized test of hand function. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 50(6), 311–319.

Kinnucan, E., Van Heest, A., et al. (2010). "Correlation of motor function and stereognosis impairment in upper limb cerebral palsy." J Hand Surg Am 35(8): 1317-1322. Find it on PubMed

Sığırtmaç, İ. C., & Öksüz, Ç. (2019). Investigation of reliability, validity, and cutoff value of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test. Journal of hand therapy : Official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists, 34(3), pp. 396–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2020.01.004

Smith, B. T., Mulcahey, M. J., et al. (1992). "The application of a modified neuroprosthetic hand system in a child with a C7 spinal cord injury. Case report." Paraplegia 30(8): 598-606. Find it on PubMed

Taylor, N., Sand, P. L., et al. (1973). "Evaluation of hand function in children." Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 54(3): 129-135. Find it on PubMed

Last Updated

Purpose

Link to Instrument

Area of Assessment

Assessment Type

Administration Mode

Cost

Cost Description

CDE Status

Diagnosis/Conditions

Number of Items

Required Training

Required Training Description

Instrument Reviewers

Body Part

ICF Domain

Measurement Domain

Professional Association Recommendation

Considerations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Cut-Off Scores

Normative Data

Test/Retest Reliability

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Construct Validity

Responsiveness

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Normative Data

Internal Consistency

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Construct Validity

Responsiveness

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Normative Data

Test/Retest Reliability

Responsiveness

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Internal Consistency

Bibliography

Leicester Cough Questionna...

Buss-Durkee Hostility Inve...

NIH Toolbox for Assessment...