Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology

2018 Edition
| Editors: Jeffrey S. Kreutzer, John DeLuca, Bruce Caplan

Purdue Pegboard

  • Kenneth PodellEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_207

Description

The Purdue Pegboard (PP) is a test of uni- and bimanual dexterity. It is manufactured by Lafayette Instrument Company and is available through them and Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. The rectangular board consists of four wells horizontally aligned across the top. The two outer wells contain pegs, while the two middle wells contain washers and collars each that fit around the pegs. The board itself has two parallel sets of 25 holes vertically arranged.

The task in general requires examinees to take one peg at a time from the same side well as the hand being used and place it into the vertically arranged holes (on the same side of the well) from top to bottom as quickly as possible. Another task requires examinees to build “assemblies” that consist of a peg with a washer on the peg followed by a collar and then another washer on top of the collar. The standard administration requires 30 s per trial. There are commonly three conditions: first the dominant hand,...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References and Readings

  1. Buddenberg, L. A., & Davis, C. (2000). Test-retest reliability of the Purdue Pegboard Test. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54, 555–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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, 133–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Flieshman, E. A., & Hempel Jr., W. E. (1954). A factor analysis of dexterity tests. Personnel Psychology, 7, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Judge, J., & Stirling, J. (2003). Fine motor skill performance in left- and right-handers: Evidence of an advantage for left-handers. Laterality, 8, 297–306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Lezak, M. D., Dowieson, D. B., & Loring, D. W. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Peters, M., Servos, P., & Day, R. (1990). Marked sex differences on a fine motor skill task disappear when finger size is used as a covariate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 87–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Reddon, J. R., Gill, D. M., Gauk, S. E., & Maerz, M. D. (1998). Purdue Pegboard: Test-retest estimates. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66, 503–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Strenge, H., Niederberger, U., & Seelhorst, U. (2002). Correlation between tests of attention and performance on grooved and Purdue Pegboards in normal subjects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 507–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Tiffin, J., & Asher, E. J. (1948). The Purdue Pegboard: Norms and studies of reliability and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 234–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Triggs, W. J., Calvano, R., Levine, M., Heaton, R. K., & Heilman, K. M. (2000). Predicting hand preference with performance on motor tests. Cortex, 36, 679–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Verdino, M., & Dingman, S. (1998). Two measures of laterality in handedness: The Edinburgh Handedness Inventory and the Purdue Pegboard Test of manual dexterity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 476–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Houston Methodist HospitalHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Henry Ford Health SystemsDetroitUSA