Assessment of Hand Functions

  • Mehmet Tuncay DuruözEmail author


The accurate assessment of hand function is very important for establishing strategies to maximize functional potential and evaluating treatment and progress of disease. The International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps and International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health are two accepted models to make description of the relationship between pathology and functional consequences of diseases. The pinch grip, full hand grip (grasp), nonprehension hand function, and bilateral prehension are four main items to classify and assess the grip. Daily activities are generally the combinations of these different types of grips. There are three main pinch functions of hand such as tip pinch, tri-digit (Chuck) pinch, and lateral (key) pinch. The dexterity (finger and manual) is a very important functional property of the hand. Speed and precision are the criteria used to measure this skill, and the tests require high-level hand–eye coordination as well as fine motor control of the hand. Impairment, disability, and handicap are complementary aspects of function, and we have to assess all three domains separately to have a complete information about hand function in patients with hand involvement. Grasp and pinch strengths can be measured with a dynamometer. There are several scales to assess the hand function. The Duruöz Hand Index; Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire; Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Index; and Arthritis Hand Function Test are some of the most widely used scales in clinical practices. The primary concern of hand functional disability questionnaires is the patient’s perception of ability.


Grip Strength Hand Function Pinch Strength Fine Motor Control Pinch Grip 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Liang MH. The historical and conceptual framework for functional assessment in rheumatic disease. J Rheumatol. 1987;14 Suppl 51:2–5.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duruöz MT, Poiraudeau S, Fermanian J, et al. Development and validation of a rheumatoid hand functional disability scale that assess functional handicap. J Rheumatol. 1996;23:1167–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kimmerle M, Mainwaring L, Borenstein M. The functional repertoire of the hand and its application to assessment. Am J Occup Ther. 2003;57:489–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McPhee SD. Functional hand evaluations: a review. Am J Occup Ther. 1987;41:158–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Health Organisation. International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1980.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Badley EM. An introduction to the concepts and classifications of the international classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. Disabil Rehabil. 1993;15:161–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stamm T, Geyh S, Cieza A, et al. Measuring functioning in patients with hand osteoarthritis – content comparison of questionnaires based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Rheumatology. 2006;45:1534–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Warabi T, Noda H, Kato T. Effect of aging on sensorimotor functions of eye and hand movements. Exp Neurol. 1986;93:686–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Warabi T, Kase M, Kato T. Effect of aging on the accuracy of visually guided saccadic eye movement. Ann Neurol. 1984;16:449–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones LA. The assessment of hand function: a critical review of techniques. J Hand Surg. 1989;14A:221–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bohannon RW, Peolsson A, Massy-Westropp N, et al. Reference values for adult grip strength measured with a Jamar dynamometer: a descriptive meta-analysis. Physiotherapy. 2006;92:11–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boatright JR, Kiebzak GM, O’Neil DM, Peindl RD. Measurement of thumb abduction strength: normative data and a comparison with grip and pinch strength. J Hand Surg Am. 1997;22:843–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mathiowetz V, Wiemer DM, Federman SM. Grip and pinch strength: norms for 6 to 19 year olds. Am J Occup Ther. 1986;40:705–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mathiowetz V, Kashman N, Volland G, et al. Grip and pinch strength: normative data for adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1985;66:69–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hanten WP, Chen WY, Austin AA, et al. Maximum grip strength in normal subjects from 20 to 64 years of age. J Hand Ther. 1999;12(3):193–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmidt RT, Toews JV. Grip strength as measured by the Jamar dynamometer. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1970;51:321–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Björk M, Thyberg I, Haglund L, Skogh T. Hand function in women and men with early rheumatoid arthritis. A prospective study over three years (the Swedish TIRA Project). Scand J Rheumatol. 2006;35:15–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Massey-Westrop NM, Gill TK, Taylor AW, et al. Hand grip strength: age and gender stratified normative data in a population-based study. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pearson R, Mackinnon MJ, Meek AP, et al. Diurnal and sequential grip function in normal subjects and effects of temperature change and exercise of the forearm on grip function in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and in normal controls. Scand J Rheumatol. 1982;11:113–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Petersen P, Petrick M, Connor H, Conklin D. Grip strength and hand dominance: challenging the 10% rule. Am J Occup Ther. 1989;43:444–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fowler NK, Nicol AC. Functional and biomechanical assessment of the normal and rheumatoid hand. Clin Biomech. 2001;16:660–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Helliwell P, Howe A, Wright V. Functional assessment of the hand: reproducibility, acceptability, and utility of a new system for measuring strength. Ann Rheum Dis. 1987;46:203–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barbier O, Penta M, Thonnard JL. Outcome evaluation of the hand and wrist according to the international classification of functioning, disability, and health. Hand Clin. 2003;19:371–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Poirier F. Dexterity as a valid measure of hand function: a pilot study. Occup Ther Health Care. 1987;4:69–83.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tiffin J, Asher EJ. The Purdue pegboard: norms and studies of reliability and validity. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32:234–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lazarski JP, Ridding MC, Miles TS. Dexterity is not affected by fatigue-induced depression of human motor cortex excitability. Neurosci Lett. 2002;321:69–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kellor M, Frost J, Silberberg N, et al. Hand strength and dexterity: norms for clinical use. Am J Occup Ther. 1971;25:77–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chiu HY, Su FC, Wang ST, Hsu HY. The motion analysis system and goniometry of the finger joints. J Hand Surg Br. 1998;23:788–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eberhardt KB, Svensson B, Moritz U. Functional assessment of early rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol. 1988;27:364–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reuter SE, Massy-Westropp N, Evans AM. Reliability and validity of indices of hand-grip strength and endurance. Aust Occup Ther J. 2011;58:82–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chung KC, Pillsbury MS, Walters MR, et al. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am. 1998;23:575–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Quick-DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand), Beaton D, Wright J, Katz J, Upper Extremity Collaborative Group. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three-item reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1038–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Beckman C, Mackie H, Harris J. Arthritis hand function test: development of a standardized assessment tool. Occup Ther J Res. 1991;11:245–56.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bellamy N, Campbell J, Haraoui B, et al. Dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in hand osteoarthritis: development of the Australian/Canadian (AUSCAN) osteoarthritis hand index. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10:855–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Penta M, Thonnard JL, Tesio L. ABILHAND: a Rasch-built measure of manual ability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79:1038–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    van Lankveld WGJM, Graff MJL, Van’t Pad Bosch PJI. The short version of the sequential occupational dexterity assessment based on individual tasks’ sensitivity to change. Arthritis Care Res. 1999;12:417–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Goodson A, McGregor AH, Douglas J, Taylor P. Direct, quantitative clinical assessment of hand function: usefulness and reproducibility. Man Ther. 2007;12:144–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    de Castro MC, Cliquet JA. An artificial grasping evaluation system for the paralysed hand. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2000;38(3):275–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Llinares A, Badesa FJ, Morales R, et al. Robotic assessment of the influence of age on upper-limb sensorimotor function. Clin Interv Aging. 2013;8:879–88.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bardorfer A, Marko Munih M, Zupan A, Ceru B. Upper limb functional assessment using haptic interface. Zdrav Vestn. 2004;73:II-19–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Rheumatology ClinicMarmara University Medical SchoolIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations