The Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) has been developed to classify how children with cerebral palsy (CP) use their hands when handling objects in daily activities. The classification is designed to reflect the child's typical manual performance, not the child's maximal capacity. It classifies the collaborative use of both hands together. Validation was based on the experience within an expert group, a review of the literature, and thorough analysis of children across a spectrum of function. Discussions continued until consensus was reached, first about the constructs, then about the content of the five levels. Parents and therapists were interviewed about the content and the description of levels. Reliability was tested between pairs of therapists for 168 children (70 females, 98 males; with hemiplegia [n=52], diplegia [n=70], tetraplegia [n=19], ataxia [n=6], dyskinesia [n=19], and unspecified CP [n=2]) between 4 and 18 years and between 25 parents and their children's therapists. The results demonstrated that MACS has good validity and reliability. The intraclass correlation coefficient between therapists was 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.96-0.98), and between parents and therapist was 0.96 (0.89-0.98), indicating excellent agreement.
The Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) has been developed to classify how children with cerebral palsy (CP) use their hands when handling objects in daily activities. The classification is designed to reflect the child's typical manual performance, not the child's maximal capacity. It classifies the collaborative use of both hands together. Validation was based on the experience within an expert group, a review of the literature, and thorough analysis of children across a spectrum of function. Discussions continued until consensus was reached, first about the constructs, then about the content of the five levels. Parents and therapists were interviewed about the content and the description of levels. Reliability was tested between pairs of therapists for 168 children (70 females, 98 males; with hemiplegia [n= 52], diplegia [n= 70], tetraplegia [n= 19], ataxia [n= 6], dyskinesia [n= 19], and unspecified CP [n= 2]) between 4 and 18 years and between 25 parents and their children's therapists. The results demonstrated that MACS has good validity and reliability. The intraclass correlation coefficient between therapists was 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.96–0.98), and between parents and therapist was 0.96 (0.89‐0.98), indicating excellent agreement.
The aim of this study was to provide norms for grip strength in children. A total of 530 Swedish 4–16‐y‐olds was tested with the instrument Grippit®. The instrument estimates peak grip strength over a 10 s period, and sustained grip strength averaged across the 10 s. The increase in grip strength with age was approximately parallel for boys and girls until 10 y of age, after which boys were significantly stronger than girls. Strong correlations existed between grip strength and the anthropometric measures weight, height and, in particular, hand length. Right‐handed children were significantly stronger in their dominant hand, while left‐handers did not show any strength difference between the hands. It is therefore suggested that when evaluating grip strength in left‐handed children both hands should be assumed to be about equally strong, while right‐handed children are expected to be up to 10% stronger with their right hand. Sustained grip strength was consistently about 80–85% of peak grip strength, with somewhat lower values in younger children. The present normative data for peak grip strength were slightly lower than 1980s' data from the USA and Australia, probably because of divergences in age grouping and in instruments used.
Conclusion: Norms for grip strength including estimates of variation were provided for children aged 4–16 y. These data will enable therapists and physicians to compare a patient's score with the scores of normally developed children according to age, gender, handedness and body measures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.