Preschool Hand Function Assessment Instruments: A Scoping Review With Targeted Analysis of Performance-Based Instruments.
Marieta Visser, Robyn Smith, Daleen Casteleijn
PMID 42093313WHAT IT FOUND
62 hand function assessments exist for preschool children, but none covers every hand function domain in a form that is culturally adaptable for low- and middle-income countries.
Most come from high-income countries and only one covers most domains.
Key findings
01The review identified 62 assessment instruments for preschool hand function. Most (46) were performance-based tests that a therapist administers and watches; 11 were questionnaires or parent-report measures, 3 were classification systems, and 2 had no stated format.
02No instrument was found that assesses all components of hand function in a standardised, performance-based and culturally adaptable way for preschool children in low- and middle-income countries. The Assessment of Children's Hand Skills was the only one covering most hand function domains.
03Domain coverage is uneven. Hand skills that do not involve objects, such as manual gestures and body contact, appeared in only one assessment, and only two instruments included isolated finger movement.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
No critical appraisal of the quality of the included sources was carried out, so the review says nothing about how well any individual instrument was developed or tested. The review mapped each instrument's specifications, domains and items, but did not systematically assess its measurement properties or its practical usefulness in clinic. Hand function terms are used interchangeably across the literature, which made domains hard to classify and instruments hard to compare. Incomplete reporting in many publications forced the authors to fill gaps from manuals, publisher websites and organisation materials, which they say may have introduced bias. Most instruments were developed and tested in high-income countries, so their cultural and contextual fit for low- and middle-income settings is unknown. 21 records were excluded because the full text was unavailable, not in English, or under embargo, so some instruments may have been missed.
Declared interests
No funding was received for this manuscript, and the authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the list of 62 instruments as evidence that any of them works. This review mapped what exists and which domains each one covers. It did not check any instrument's reliability or validity, so a tool appearing here tells you nothing about how accurately it measures hand function in your setting.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →