{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022176022176022176, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009009009009009009, 'mean_word_length': 4.82258064516129, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Does the use of a template board imply new normative data for the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test?

Introduction Recent research reports the necessity of a template board to ensure accuracy when administering the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test. However, the original studies that collected normative data did not use a template board. This study collected a sample of data for one female age group of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test using a template board. Methods Thirty female participants with no history of hand trauma or a condition affecting the hand were recruited. Each participant carried out subtests 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test, which was compared to the normative data available for this test. Results Results show a significant difference in the mean performance for subtest 2 (non-dominant) and subtest 3 (dominant and non-dominant) with p-values < 0.05 for a difference in means t-test. The remaining subtests 5, 6 and 7 were not statistically significant. Conclusions The findings reported in this study add to the empirical evidence investigating the normative data for the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test. The statistically significant difference in mean times for two subtests suggests that new normative data may need to be established if clinicians intend to use a template board when administering the test. Resolving this issue is a natural avenue for further research in this area.