Comparison of two-point discrimination testing devices
β Scribed by Page M. Crosby; A. Lee Dellon
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1989
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 413 KB
- Volume
- 10
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0738-1085
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
In order to provide hand therapists and physicians with information regarding instruments for testing two-point discrimination we evaluated 20 noninjured and 18 nerve-injured patients using the three-prong Aesthesiometep, a paper clip, and a Disk-CriminatoP. Two-point discrimination was tested by means of a randomized order for the two different discrimination tests and the three different testing devices. The measurement for either moving or static two-point discrimination, when obtained with the three-prong Aesthesiometep, was consistently less sensitive than with the Disk-Criminatop, and the correlation coefficient was the least between these two testing devices. The Disk-CriminatoP measurement had the smallest standard deviation among the three testing devices. In terms of desirability of the testing device tip geometry, translation of interprong distance to numerical rating scale, and facility of alternating between one-and two-prong testing techniques, the paper clip was judged to be the least favorable and the Disk-Criminatop to be the most favorable test device.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
A study was designed to investigate the role of terminal probes as determinates of two-point discrimination in the normal hand. A Vernier caliper was modified to allow an exchange of probes with different diameters and with different terminal shapes. These terminal devices included flat, sharp, and
## Abstract Objective evaluation of patients' knee motion using mechanical devices, whether for diagnostic purposes or for assessing rehabilitative procedures, requires that these devices be reproducible, in order to avoid errors independent of the patients' condition. This study prospectively eval
A one-sample hypothesis testing method is presented for comparing the accuracy of two diagnostic tests. Costs and inconveniences related to the false positive and false negative diagnostic test results, to the extent that they are quantifiable, are considered as measures of the importance of avoidin