Lafayette Instrument 32025 Grooved Pegboard Test User Manual

Model 32025
Grooved Pegboard Test
User Manual

Purpose

The Grooved Pegboard task measures eye-hand coordination and motor speed.

Cleaning Instructions

Isopropyl alcohol is preferred. No other cleaners are recommended. Do not use bleach or hydrogen peroxide. Clean pins with Isopropyl alcohol only.
Disclaimer: The cleaning instructions for Lafayette Instrument products are a recommendation of compatible cleaning materials only. Product end users are responsible for instituting an appropriate cleaning regimen utilizing best practices and techniques. Lafayette Instrument assumes no responsibility for the cleanliness or sanitation of the products after initial use nor makes any claim that the use of the recommended cleaning materials mitigates all risk of potential cross infection.

Administration Instructions

The apparatus is placed with the peg tray oriented above the pegboard. The person is instructed to insert the pegs, matching the groove of the peg with the groove of the hole, filling the rows in a given direction as quickly as possible, without skipping any slots. Using the right hand, the patient is asked to work from left to right, and with the left hand, in the opposite direction. The dominant hand is tested first. The patient is warned that only one peg should be picked up at a time and that only one hand is to be used. If a peg is dropped, the examiner does not retrieve it; rather, one of the pegs correctly placed (usually, the first or second peg) is taken out and used again.
The examiner demonstrates one row before allowing the patient to begin. A practice trial is not given, and a trial may be discontinued after 5 min. In the HRNES (Russell and Starkey, 1993) version, the person continues until all pegs have been placed or until a time limit of 3 min has been reached. ln both versions, the examiner begins timing after cueing the individual to begin.

Administration Time

The time required is 5 minutes.
Scoring
The score is computed for each hand separately and is the time required to place the pegs.
Some researchers also record the number of pegs not placed and the number of pegs dropped; these errors may be considered clinically and are rarely seen in neurologically normal individuals (Heaton et al., 2004).

Demographic Effect

When each hand is considered separately, several trends emerge.
Age
Age has a strong impact on test scores, with performance improving (faster times) in childhood (RosseIli et al., 2001; Solan, 1987) and declining with advancing age (e.g., Bornstein, 1985; Concha et al., 1995; Mitrushina et al., 2005; Ruff & Parker, 1993; Selnes et al., 1991). According to Heaton et al. (2004), about 30 degrees to 31 degrees of the variance in test scores is accounted for by age.
Gender
Some have found significant gender differences in performance, with women outperforming men (Bornstein, 1985; Ruff & Parker, 1993; Schmidt et al., 2000), perhaps reflecting differences in finger size (Peters et al., 1990). However, others have noted that gender has little effect on test scores (Concha et al., 1995; Heaton et al., 2004; Mitrushina et al., 2005), accounting for less than 1% of the variance in test scores (Heaton et al., 2004). No gender effect has been found in children (Rosselli et al., 2001).
Hand Preference
Performance is faster with the dominant/preferred hand (Bryden et al., 1998; Heaton et al., 2004). Handedness (right, left) does not affect test scores (Ruff & Parker, 1993).
Education/IQ
Some have reported that better educated individuals perform faster (Ruff St Parker, 1993).
However, others have found that education has little or only a small effect (Bernstein, 1985; Concha et al., 1995; Mitrushina et al., 2005; Selnes et al.,1991), accounting for about 3% to 6% of the variance test scores (Heaton et al., 2004).
Ethnicity
The impact of ethnicity has not been reported.
Intermanual Differences
Neither age, education, nor hand preference is related to intermanual differences scores on the Grooved Pegboard (Bornstein, 1986c; Ruff & Parker, 1993; Thompson et al., 1987); however, intermanual differences tend to be larger for females than for males (Rosselli et al., 2001; Thompson et al., 1987; but see Bornstein, 1986c).

Normative Data

Adults
Heaton et al. (2004) have developed normative data based on a large sample of Caucasians and African Americans (see Table 14-15), They provide norms separately for these two ethnicity groups, organized by age, gender and education.
The data set covers a wide range in terms of age (20-85 years) and education (0-20 years), and exclusion criteria are specified. T scores lower than 40 are classed as impaired. According to Heaton et al. (2004). Unfortunately, the method for determining hand preference was not described. Mitrushina et al. (2005) provide meta-norms, based on six studies and representing 2382 participants, aged 20 to 64 years. They noted that the integrity or the results is undermined by the lack of consistency in reporting of hand preference. Table 14-16 provides data (Ruff and Parker, 1993) based on a sample of 357 individuals aged 16 to 70 years, ranging in education from 7 to 22 years. Participants were screened to exclude those with a positive history of psychiatric hospitalization, chronic polydrug abuse, or neurological disorders. Hand preference was evaluated using a lateral dominance examination. The data agree reasonably well with those provided by Mitrushina et al. (2005).
Children/Adolescents
Older normative data sets are available for children (Knights, 1970; Knights & Moule, 1968; Trites, 1977). However, use of these norms is not recommended, because they are quite dated and cell sizes are quite small. Recently, Rosselli et al. (2001) used the 25-hole pegboard and provided data (see Table 14-17) on a sample of 290 Spanish-speaking children (141 boys, 149 girls), aged 6 to 11 years, in Bogota, Colombia. None of the subjects was mentally retarded. Based on the Waterloo Handedness questionnaire, 268 children were right-handed, and 22 were left-handed. Rosselli et al. (2001) noted that the older the group, the smaller the difference in performance between hands.
The performance of older children was similar to that of adults aged 40 to 59 years (e.g., Bernstein, 1985; Ruff & Parker, 1993), suggesting that additional gains are made during adelescence. In line with this proposal, are the findings by Paniak (personal communication, April 10, 2004) for a sample of 358 adolescents living in a large western Canadian city (see Table 14-18). The exclusion criteria for this sample included failure of one or more grades, enrollment in an English as a Second Language program, a history of hospitalization for brain injury or behavioral problems, or participation in a self-contained special education program. The sample was largely right-handed and had a WISC-III Vocabulary scaled score of about 10 (SD=3).
Table 14-15
Characteristics of the Grooved Pegboard Normative Sample provided by Heaton et al. (2004)

serious psychiatric disorder, or alcohol or drug abuse

a. Age groups: 20-34, 35- 39, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, 75-79, and 80-89 years
b. Education groups: 7-8, 9-11, 12, 13-15, 16-17, and 18-20 years
Table 14-16
Mean Performance of Adults for Grooved Pegboard, by Education, Age, and Gender

| Less than or Equal To Grade 12| Greater than Grade 12
---|---|---
Age Group (Years)| N| M| SD| N| M| SD
Females, Preferred hand| | |
16-39| 30| 62.8| 8.9| 60| 57.8| 6.2
40-54| 14| 63.1| 4.4| 30| 63.3| 7.4
55-70| 15| 78.6| 11.7| 29| 75.3| 11.3
Females, Nonpreferred hand
16-39| 29| 66.8| 10.7| 60| 65.2| 10.3
40-54| 15| 69.6| 6.5| 30| 70.8| 8.9
55-70| 13| 84.3| 15.3| 29| 82| 12.5
Males, Preferred hand
16-39| 29| 67.8| 9.2| 60| 64.7| 10.9
40-54| 15| 71.9| 15.1| 30| 70.4| 10.9
55-70| 15| 83.7| 10.2| 30| 74.1| 13.0
Males, Nonpreferred hand
16-39| 29| 74.5| 10.9| 59| 67.8| 10.8
40-54| 15| 79.1| 14.9| 30| 73.7| 9.9
55-70| 15| 91| 12.7| 28| 83.5| 13.4

Note: Based on a sample of 357 healthy participants
Source: From Ruff & Parker 1993 © Perceptual and Motor Skills 1993. Reprinted with Permission.
Table 14-17
Grooved Pegboard (Time in Seconds) Normative Data for Spanish- Speaking Boys and Girls Aged 6-11 Years (25-Hole Pegboard), by Age

| 6-7 years (n=83)| 8-9 years (n=121)| 10-11 years (n=86)
---|---|---|---
Preferred Hand| 92.46 (17.80)| 81.96 (13.79)| 69.47 (10.47)
Nonpreferred Hand| 104.00 (21.44)| 93.58 (17.67)| 76.41 (12.22)

Source: Adapted from Rosselli et al., 2001.
Table 14-18
Mean Performance (Seconds) on Grooved Pegboard in Adolescents

Note: Based on a sample of 358 healthy adolescents in a large Western Canadian city.
Source: C. Paniak, H. Miller & D. Murphy (personal communication, April 10, 2004).
Table 14-19
Grooved Pegboard Test-Retest Effects in 121 Normal Individuals Assessed After Intervals of 2 to 16 Months

| Time 1| | Time 2| | T2-T1| | T1,T2
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
| (1)| | (2)| | (3)| (4)|
Measure| Mean| SD| Mean| SD| M| SD| r
Dominant| 69.66| 19.27| 68.68| 21.04| -0.98| 10.03| 0.86
Nondominant| 75.8| 21.56| 73.7| 19.69| -2.09| 11.11| 0.86

Note: Based on a sample of 121 normal individuals (mean age=43.6, SD=19.6; mean education=12.0, SD=3.3) after retest intervals of about 2-16 months (mean=5.4, SD=2.5) One first subtracts the mean T2-T1 change (column 3) from the difference between the two testings for the individual and then compares it to 1.64 times the standard deviation of the difference (column 4). The 1.64 comes from the normal distribution and is exceeded in the positive or negative direction on 10% of the time if indeed there is no real change in clinical condition.
Source: Adapted from Kikmen et al., 1999.
Table 14-20
Grooved Pegboard Test-Retest Effects in 605 Healthy Males Assessed After Intervals of 2 to 24 Months

| Time 1| | Time 2| | T2-T1| | T1,T2
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
| (1)| | (2)| | (3)| (4)|
Measure| Mean| SD| Mean| SD| M| SD| r
Dominant| 64.2| 8.94| 61.7| 8.16| -2.5| 7.01| 0.67
Nondominant| 69.1| 10.39| 66.5| 9.55| -2.61| 7.37| 0.73

Note: Based on a sample of 605 healthy males, mostly Caucasian (mean age=39.5, SD=8.5; mean education=16.4, SD=2.3) after retest intervals of about 2-24 months (mean=218 days, SD=95).
Source: Adapted from Levine et al., 2004.
Table 14-21
Regression Equasions for Estimating Restest Scores

Note: Based on a sample of 605 healthy males, mostly Caucasian (mean age=39.5, SD=8.5; mean education=16.4, SD=2.3) after retest intervals of about 2-24 months (mean=218 days, SD=95).
Source: Adapted from Levine et al., 2004.

Reliability

Test-Retest Reliability ond Practice Effects
With retest intervals of about 4 to 24 months, reliability coefficients are marginal/high (.67 to .86) in normal individuals (aged 15 years and older; Dikmen et al., 1999; Levine et al.,2004; Ruff & Parker, 1993). No information is available for children. When repeated trials are given within a session, performance improves particularly after the first trial (Schmidt et al., 2000). With two or more sessions (e.g., assessments 1 and 2 occurring within 1 week of each other, assessments 3 and 4 about 3 and 6 months later), performance improves steadily (McCaffrey et al., 1993; but see Bornstein et al.,1987).
Detecting Change
When individuals are retested after intervals of about 2 to 24 months, practice effects are evident (Dikrnen et al., 1999; Levine et al., 2004; Ruff & Parker, 1993). Dikmen et al. (1999) examined a sample of 121 normal adults (age M=43.6,SD=19.6; education M=12.0, SD=3.3) after retest intervals of about 2 to 16 months (M=5.4, SD=2.5). Table 14-19 provides information to assess change, taking practice effects into account (RCI-PE). Using values in Table 14-19, one first subtracts the mean T2 — T1 change (column 3) from the difference between the two testings for the individual and then compares the result with 1.64 times the standard deviation of the difference (column 4). The 1.64 comes from the normal distribution and is exceeded in the positive or negative direction only 10% of the time if indeed there is no real change in clinical condition. Drawing from a database of 605 well-educated men (education M=16.4, SD=2.3), mostly Caucasian males (age M=39.5, SD=8.7), Levine and colleagues (2004) used both RCI-PE and simple linear regression approaches to derive estimates of change. The retest interval ranged from 4 to 24 months (M=218 days, SD=95). The length of retest interval did not contribute significantly to the regression equation. Table 14-20 shows the means, standard deviations of the change scores, and test-retest correlations for use in RCI equations. Table 14-21 shows the regression formulas used to estimate time 2 scores. The residual standard deviations for the regression formulas are also shown and can be used to establish the normal range for retest scores. For example, a 90% confidence interval can be created around the scores by multiplying the residual standard deviation by 1.645, which allows for 5% of people to fall outside of both the upper and lower extremes. Individuals whose scores exceed the extremes are considered to have significant changes.

Validity

Relationships With Other Measures
Pegboard time (dominant hand) shows a modest relation with tapping speed (—.35; Schear & Sato, 1989), and factor analytic findings indicate that the two tasks load differently (Baser & Ruff, 1987). Examination of relations among manual performance tasks in healthy individuals suggests that finger tapping and pegboard tasks are more closely related to one another than to grip strength (Corey et al., 2001).
In addition to requiring motor execution, the pegboard task also requires adequate vision.
Schear and Sato (1989) found a moderately strong correlation (—.62) between nearvisual acuity and dominant-hand pegboard time.
Moderate/high associations have also been reported with measures of attention (e.g., reaction time r= .31; TMT-Br=.46; Schear & Sato, 1989; Strenge et al. 2002), perceptual speed (Digit Symbol r= —.60; Schear & Sato, 1989) and nonverbal reasoning (Block Design r= -34; Object Assembly r= —.45; Schear & Sato, 1989; see also Haaland & Delaney, 1981).
There is little relation between pegboard scores (preferred hand) and grades in academic subjects (Rosselli et al., 2001), although Solan (1987) noted a moderate relation (r=~.41) with WRAT arithmetic.
Clinical Findings
There is evidence that pegboard-placing speed is reduced in a number of conditions, including stroke (Haaland & Delaney,1981), tumor (Haaland & Delaney, 1981), autism (Hardan et al.,2003), nonverbal learning disabilities (Harnadek & Rourke,1994), Williams syndrome (MacDonald & Roy, 1988), bipolar disorder (Wilder-Willis et al., 2001), endstage heart disease (Putzke et al., 2000), toxic exposure (Bleecker et al., 1997; Mathiesen et al., 1999), substance abuse (withdrawn cocaine users; Smelson et al., 1999), and HIV-1 infection (Carey et al.,2004; Hestad et al., 1993). Various drug treatments (carbamazepine, phenytoin) also impair performance (Meadoret al., 1991).
The test is also a sensitive, but not totally accurate, indicator of lateralized disturbances (Bornstein, 1986a; Haaland & Delaney, 1981).
Left cerebral lesions tend to attenuate the more typical pattern of manual asymmetry; right lesions move the discrepancies in the opposite direction. However, ipsilateral impairment is also seen—perhaps a reflection of the significant sequencing, visual-spatial, and monitoring requirements of the tasks (Haaland & Delaney, 1981). Lewis & Kupke (1992) also suggested that difficulty adapting to a novel task, especially with the nonpreferred hand, may affect performance.Typically, performances of the preferred and nonpreferred hands are compared on motor tasks to determine whether there is consistent evidence of poor performance with one hand relative to the other. In general, performance with the preferred hand is superior (by about 10%) to that with the nonpreferred hand (Mitrushina et al., 2005; Thompson et al.,1987). However, there is considerable variability in the normal population, and the preferred hand is not necessarily the faster one (Bornstein, 1986c; Corey et al., 2001), especially when left-handed people are considered (Corey et al., 2001; Thompson et al., 1987). Patterns indicating equal or better performance with the nonpreferred hand occur with considerable regularity in the normal population (about 25%), and neurological involvement should not be inferred from an isolated lack of concordance. Fairly large discrepancies between the hands on the Grooved Pegboard Test alone also cannot be used to suggest unilateral impairment, because discrepancies of large magnitude are not uncommon (about 20%) in the normal population (Bornstein, 1986a, 1986c; Thompson et al., 1987). In addition, intermanual discrepancies (even of large magnitude) are not perfect predictors of the side of lesion (Bornstein, 1986a). Greater confidence in the clinical judgment of impaired motor function with one or the other hand can be gained from consideration of the consistency of intermanual discrepancies across several motor tasks, because truly consistent, deviant performances are quite rare in the normal population (Bornstein, 1986a, 1986b; Thompson et al., 1987).
It is important to note that there may be reasons other than neurological impairment for an individual to perform poorly on this task.
Deficits in tactile acuity at the fingertips can also translate into significant difficulties in tasks, such as the Grooved Pegboard, that require fine manipulations (Tremblay et al., 2002), Depression has also been associated with lower performance (Hinkin et al., 1992) as are some medications (e.g., Meador et al., 1991).
Ecological/Predictive Validity
Weak/modest associations have been noted between pegboard scores and daily functioning (complex activities of daily living) in patients with multiple sclerosis (Kessler et al.,1992) and after head injury (Farmer & Eakman, 1995). In those with HIV infection, poor performance may represent an early sign of a dementing process: Defective performance on the Grooved Pegboard was linked with an increased risk of becoming demented over a 30-month foliow-up period (Stern et al., 2001).
Malingering
Individuals simulating head injury tend to suppress their performance on the Grooved Pegboard (Johnson & Lesniak-Karpiak, 1997; Rapport et al., 1998; but see Wong et al., 1998), although warning participants of the possibility of detection (Johnson & LesniakKarpiak, 1997) or coaching them on how to avoid detection (Rapport et al., 1998) may improve test scores.
Greiffenstein and colleagues (1996) examined the average performance of the dominant and nondominant hands on tests of motor functioning and reported that compensationseeking patients with postconcussion syndrome (PCS) demonstrated a nonphysiological profile on grip strength, finger tapping, and Grooved Pegboard (grip strength < finger tapping < grooved pegs). However Rapport et al. (1998) found that the presence of nonphysiological configurations (grip strength < finger tapping < grooved pegs) showed poor predictive accuracy among simulators and controls.

References

Baser, C. N., & Ruff, R. M. (1987). Construct validity of the San Diego Neuropsychological Test Battery. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 2, 13-32.
Bleecker, M. L., Lindgren, K. N., & Ford, D. P. (1997). Differential contribution of current and cumulative indices of lead dose to neuropsychological performance by age. Neurology, 48, 639-645.
Bornstein, R. A. (1985). Normative data on selected neuropsychological measures from a nonclinical sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 651-658.
Bornstein, R. A. (l986a). Consistency of intermanual discrepancies in normal and unilateral brain lesion patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 719-723.
Bornstein, R. A. (1986b). Classification rates obtained with “standard” cut- off scores on selected neuropsychological measures. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 8, 413-420.
Bornstein, R. A. (1986c). Normative data on intermanual differences on three tests of motor performance. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 8, 12-20.
Bornstein, R. A., Baker, G. B., & Douglas, A. B. (1987). Short-term test- retest reliability of the Halstead-Reitan Battery in a normal sample. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 229-232.
Bryden, P. J., Roy, E. A., & Bryden, M. P. (1998). Between task comparisons: Movement complexity affects the magnitude of manual asymmetries. Brain and Cognition, 37, 47-50.
Carey, C. L., Woods, S. P., Rippeth, I. D., Gonzalez, R., Moore, D. ]., Marcotte, T. D., Grant, 1., 1-leaton, R. K., & the HNRC Group. (2004). Initial validation of a screening battery for the detection of HIV-associated cognitive impairment. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 18, 234-248.
Concha, M., Selnes, O. A., McArthur, I. C., Nance-Sproson, T., Updike, M. L., Royall W., Solomon, L., & Vlahov, D. (1995). Normative data for a brief neuropsychologic test battery in a cohort of injecting drug users. International journal of the Addictions, 30, 823-841.
Corey, D. M., Hurley, M. M., & Foundas, A. L. (2001). Right and left handedness defined.
Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neurology, 14, 144-152.
Dikmen. S. 5., Heaton, R. K., Grant, l., & Temkin, N. R. (1999). Test-retest reliability and practice effects of expanded Halstead-Reitan neuropsychological test battery. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 5, 346-356.
Farmer, I. E., & Eakman, A. M. (1995). The relationship between neuropsychological functioning and instrumental activities of dailyliving following acquired brain injury.
Applied Neuropsychology, 2, 107-115.
Greiffenstein, M. F., Baker, W. J., & Gola, T. (1996). Motor dysfunction profiles in traumatic brain injury and postconcussion syndrome. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2, 477-485.
Haaland, K. Y., & Delaney, H. D. (1981). Motor deficits after left orright hemisphere damage due to stroke or tumor. Neuropsychologia, 19, 17-27.
Hamby, S. L., Bardi, C. A., & Wilkins, I. W. ( 1997). Neuropsychological assessment of relatively intact individuals: Psychometric lessons from an HlV+ sample. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 12, 545-556.
Hardan, A. Y., Kilpatrick, M., Keshavan, M. S., & Minshew, N. I.(2003). Motor performance and anatomic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the basal ganglia in autism. Journal of Child Neurology, 18, 317-324.
Harnadek, M. C., & Rourke, B. P. (1994). Principal identifying features of nonverbal learning disabilities in children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 144-154.
Heaton, R. K., Miller, S. W., Taylor, M. ]., 81 Grant, l. (2004). Revised comprehensive norms for an expanded Halstead-Reitan Battery: Demographically adjusted neuropsychological norms for African American and Caucasian adults. Lutz, FL: PAR.
Hestad, K., McArthur, I. H., Dal Pan, G. J., Selnes, O. A., et al., (1993). Regional brain atrophy in HIV-1 infection: Association with specific neuropsychological test performance. Acta Neurological Scandinavica, 88, 112-118.
Hinkin, C. H., van Gorp, W. G., Satz, P., Weisman, I. D., Thommes, 1., & Buckingham, S. (1992). Depressed mood and its relationship to neuropsychological test performance in HIV-1 seropositive individuals. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 14, 289-297.
Johnson, I. L., & Lesniak-Karpiak, K. (1997). The effect of warning on malingering on memory and motor tasks in college samples. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 12, 231238.
Kessler, H. R., Cohen, R. A., Lauer, K., & Kausch, D. F. (1992). The relationship between disability and memory dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. International Journal of Neuroscience, 62, 17-34.
Knights, R. M. (1970). Srnoothed normative data on tests for evaluation of brain damage in children. Unpublished manuscript. Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario.
Knights, R. M., & Moule, A. D. (1968). Normative data on the Motor Steadiness Battery for children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 26, 643-650.
Levine, A. 1., Miller, E. N., Becker, I. T., Selnes, O. A., & Cohen, B. A. (2004). Normative data for determining significance of test-retest differences on eight common neuropsychological instruments. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 18, 373-384.
Lewis, R., & Kupke, T. (1992). lnterrnanual differences on skilled and unskilled motor tasks in nonlateralized brain dysfunction. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6, 374-382.
MacDonald, G. W., & Roy, R. D. (1988). Williams Syndrome: A neuropsychological profile.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 10, 125-131.
Matthews, C. G., & Klove, K. (1964). Instruction manual for the Adul Neuropsychology Test Battery. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Medical School.
Mathiesen, T., Ellingsen, D. G., & Kjuus, H. (1999). Neuropsychological effects associated with exposure to mercury vapor among former chloralkali workers. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 25, 342-250.
McCaffrey, R. J., Ortega, A., & Haase, R. F. (1993). Effects of repeated neuropsychological assessments. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 8, 519-524.
Meador, K. J., Loring, D. W., Allen, M. E., Zamini, E. Y., et al. (1991). Comparative cognitive effects of carbamazepine and phenytoin in healthy adults. Neurology, 41, 1537-1540.
Mitrushina, M. N., Boone, K. B., Razani, J. & d’Elia, L. F. (2005). Handbook of normative data for neuropsychological assessment (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Peters, M., Servos, P., & Day, R. (1990). Marked sex difference between right- handers and left-handers disappear when finger size is used as a covariate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 87-90.
Putzke, J. D., Williams, M. A., Daniel, F. J., Foley, B. A., Kirklin, 1. K., & Boll, T. 1. (2000).
Neuropsychological functioning among heart transplant candidates: A case control study.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22, 95-103.
Rapport, L. J., Farchione, T. J., Coleman, R. D., & Axelrod, B. N.(1998). Effects of coaching on malingered motor function profiles. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20, 89-97.
Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., Bateman, J. R., & Guzman, M. (2001). Neuropsychological test scores, academic performance, and developmental disorders in Spanish-speaking children.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 20, 355-373.
Ruff, R. M., & Parker, S. B. (1993). Gender- and age-specific changes in motor speed and eye hand coordination in adults: Normative values for the Finger Tapping and Grooved Pegboard tests. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 1219-1230.
Russell, E. W., & Starkey, R. J. (1993). Halstead Russell Neuropsychological Evaluation System (HRNES). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Schear, J. M., & Sato, S. D. (1989). Effects of visual acuity and visual motor speed and dexterity on cognitive test performance. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 4, 25-32.
Schmidt, S. L., Oliveira, R. M., Rocha, F. R., & Abreu-Villaca, Y. (2000). Influences of handedness and gender on the Grooved Pegboard Test. Brain and Cognition, 44, 445-454.
Selnes, O. A., Jacobson, L., Machado, A. M., Becker, J. T., Wesch, J., Miller, E. N., Visscher, B., McArthur, 1. C. (1991 ). Normative data for a brief neuropsychological screening battery.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 539-550.
Smelson, D. A., Roy, A., Santana, S., & Engelhart, C. (1999). Neuropsychological deficits in withdrawn cocaine-dependent males. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 25, 377-381.
Solan, A. (1987). Perceptual norms in grades 4 and 5: A preliminary report. Journal of the American Optometric Association, 58, 979-982.
Stern, Y., McDerrnott, M. P., Albert, S., Palumbo, D., Selnes, O. A., McArthur, 1., Sacktor, N., Schifitto, G., Kieburtz, K., Epstein, L., Marder, K. S., & Dana Consortium on the Therapy of HIV-Dementia and Related Cognitive Disorders. (2001). Factors associated with incident human immunodeficiency virus-dementia. Archives of Neurology, 58, 473-479.
Strenge, H., Niedenberger, U., & Seelhorst, U. (2002). Correlation between tests of attention and performance on Grooved and Purdue Pegboards in normal subjects.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 507-5 14.
Thompson, L. L., Heaton, K. R., Matthews, C. G., & Grant, I. (1987). Comparison of preferred and nonpreferred hand performance on four neuropsychological motor tasks. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 1, 324-334.
Tremblay, P., Wong, K., Sanderson, R., & Cote, L. (2002). Tactile spatial acuity in elderly persons: Assessment with grating domes and relationship with manual dexterity.
Somatosensory and Motor Research, 20, 127-132.
Trites, R. (1977). Neuropsychological test manual. Ottawa, Ontario: Royal Ottawa Hospital (available from Lafayette Instrument Company).
Wilder-Willis, K. E., Sax, K., Rosenberg, H. L., Fleck, D. E., Shear, P. K., & Strakowski, S. M.
(2001). Persistent attentional dysfunction in remitted bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disorders, 3, 58-62.
Wong, I. L., Lerrner-Poppen, L., & Durham, I. (1998). Does warning reduce obvious malingering on memory and motor tasks in college samples? International Journal of Rehabilitation and Health, 4, 153-165.
Information used by permission of Oxford University Press, Inc.
A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms and Commentary by Otfried Spreen and Esther Strauss (1998)

Terms and Conditions

LIC Worldwide Headquarters
Toll-Free: 800-428-7545 (USA only)
Phone: 765-423-1505
Fax: 765-423-4111
sales@lafayetteinstrument.com
export@lafayetteinstrument.com (Outside the USA)
Mailing Address:
Lafayette Instrument Company
PO Box 5729
Lafayette, IN 47903, USA
Lafayette Instrument Europe
Phone: +44 1509 817700
Fax: +44 1509 817701
Email: eusales@lafayetteinstrument.com
Phone, Fax, Email or Mail-in Orders
All orders need to be accompanied by a hard copy of your purchase order. All orders must include the following information:

• Quantity
• Part Number
• Description
• Your purchase order number or method of pre-payment
• Your tax status (include tax-exempt numbers)
• Shipping address for this order
• Billing address for the invoice we’ll mail when this order is shipped
• Signature and typed name of person authorized to order these products
• Your telephone number
• Your email address
• Your FAX number

Domestic Terms
There is a $50 minimum order. Open accounts can be extended to most recognized businesses. Net amount due 30 days from the date of shipment unless otherwise specified by us. Enclose payment with the order; charge with VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or pay COD. We must have a hard copy of your purchase order by mail, E-mail or fax. Students, individuals and private companies may call for a credit application.
International Payment Information
There is a $50 minimum order. Payment must be made in advance by: draft drawn on a major US bank; wire transfers to our account; charge with VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or confirmed irrevocable letter of credit.Proforma invoices will be provided upon request.
Exports
If ordering instrumentation for use outside the USA, please specify the country of ultimate destination, as well as the power requirements (110V/60Hz or 220V/50Hz). Some model numbers for 220V/50Hz will have a “*C” suffix.
Quotations
Quotations are supplied upon request. Written quotations will include the price of goods, cost of shipping and handling, if requested, and estimated delivery time frame. Quotations are good for 30 days, unless otherwise noted. Following that time, prices are subject to change and will be re-quoted at your request.
Cancellations
Orders for custom products, custom assemblies or instruments built to customer specifications will be subject to a cancellation penalty of 100%.
Payment for up to 100% of the invoice value of custom products may be required in advance. Cancellation for a standard Lafayette Instrument manufactured product once the product has been shipped will normally be assessed a charge of 25% of the invoice value, plus shipping charges. Resell items, like custom products, will be subject to a cancellation penalty of 100%.
Exchanges and Refunds
Please see the cancellation penalty as described above. No item may be returned without prior authorization of Lafayette Instrument Company and a Return Goods Authorization (RGA#) number which must be affixed to the shipping label of the returned goods. The merchandise should be packed well, insured for the full value and returned along with a cover letter explaining the reason for return. Unopened merchandise may be returned prepaid within thirty (30) days after receipt of the item and in the original shipping carton. Collect shipments will not be accepted. Product must be returned in saleable condition, and credit is subject to inspection of the merchandise.
Repairs
Instrumentation may not be returned without first receiving a Return Goods Authorization Number (RGA). When returning instrumentation for service, please call Lafayette Instrument to receive a RGA number. Your RGA number will be good for 30 days. Address the shipment to:
Lafayette Instrument Company
3700 Sagamore Parkway North
Lafayette, IN 47904, USA.
Shipments cannot be received at the PO Box. The items should be packed well, insured for full value, and returned along with a cover letter explaining the malfunction. An estimate of repair will be given prior to completion ONLY if requested in your enclosed cover letter. We must have a hard copy of your purchase order by mail or fax, or repair work cannot commence for non-warranty repairs.
Damaged Goods
Damaged instrumentation should not be returned to Lafayette Instrument prior to a thorough inspection. If a shipment arrives damaged, note damage on delivery bill and have the driver sign it to acknowledge the damage. Contact the delivery service, and they will file an insurance claim. If damage is not detected at the time of delivery, contact the carrier/shipper and request an inspection within 10 days of the original delivery. Please call the Lafayette Instrument Customer Service Department for repair or replacement of the damaged merchandise.
Limited Warranty
Lafayette Instrument Company warrants equipment manufactured by the company to be free of defects in material and workmanship for a period of one year from the date of shipment, except as provided hereinafter. The original manufacturer’s warranty will be honored by Lafayette Instrument for items not manufactured by Lafayette Instrument Company, i.e. resell items. This assumes normal usage under commonly accepted operating parameters and excludes consumable products.
Warranty period for repairs or used instrumentation purchased from Lafayette Instrument is 90 days. Lafayette Instrument Company agrees either to repair or replace, at its sole option and free of part charges to the customer, instrumentation which, under proper and normal conditions of use, proves to be defective within the warranty period. Warranty for any parts of such repaired or replaced instrumentation shall be covered under the same limited warranty and shall have a warranty period of 90 days from the date of shipment or the remainder of the original warranty period whichever is greater. This warranty and remedy are given expressly and in lieu of all other warranties, expressed or implied, of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose and constitutes the only warranty made by Lafayette Instrument Company.
Lafayette Instrument Company neither assumes nor authorizes any person to assume for it any other liability in connection with the sale, installation, service or use of its instrumentation. Lafayette Instrument Company shall have no liability whatsoever for special, consequential, or punitive damages of any kind from any cause arising out of the sale, installation, service or use of its instrumentation. All products manufactured by Lafayette Instrument Company are tested and inspected prior to shipment. Upon prompt notification by the Customer, Lafayette Instrument Company will correct any defect in warranted equipment of its manufacture either, at its option, by return of the item to the factory, or shipment of a repaired or replacement part. Lafayette Instrument Company will not be obliged, however, to replace or repair any piece of equipment, which has been abused, improperly installed, altered, damaged, or repaired by others. Defects in equipment do not include decomposition, wear, or damage by chemical action or corrosion, or damage incurred during shipment.
Limited Obligations Covered by this Warranty

1. In the case of instruments not of Lafayette Instrument Company manufacture, the original manufacturer’s warranty applies.
2. Shipping charges under warranty are covered only in one direction. The customer is responsible for shipping charges to the factory if return of the part is required.
3. This warranty does not cover damage to components due to improper installation by the customer.
4. Consumable and or expendable items, including but not limited to electrodes, lights, batteries, fuses, O-rings, gaskets, and tubing, are excluded from warranty.
5. Failure by the customer to perform normal and reasonable maintenance on instruments will void warranty claims.
6. If the original invoice for the instrument is issued to a company that is not the company of the end user, and not an authorized Lafayette Instrument Company distributor, then all requests for warranty must be processed through the company that sold the product to the end user, and not directly to Lafayette Instrument Company.

Export License
The U.S. Department of Commerce requires an export license for any polygraph system shipment with an ULTIMATE destination other than: Australia, Japan, New Zealand or any NATO Member Countries. It is against U.S. law to ship a Polygraph system to any other country without an export license. If the ultimate destination is not one of the above listed countries, contact us for the required license application forms.

PO Box 5729.
Lafayette, IN 47903
Fax: 765-423-4111
3700 Sagamore Pkwy N
Lafayette, IN 47904
Tel: 765-423-1505
info@lafayetteinstrument.com
www.lafayetteinstrument.com
© 2023 by Lafayette Instrument Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. Rel. 3.6.23

Documents / Resources

| Lafayette Instrument 32025 Grooved Pegboard Test [pdf] User Manual
32025, 32025 Grooved Pegboard Test, Grooved Pegboard Test, Test
---|---

References

• Welcome | Lafayette Instrument Company

Read User Manual Online (PDF format)

Read User Manual Online (PDF format)  >>

Download This Manual (PDF format)

Download this manual  >>