Advances in Physical Education
2013. Vol.3, No.1, 15-19
Published Online February 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ape) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ape.2013.31003
Relationships of Various Coordination Tests
Haruka Kawabata1, Shinichi Demura1, Tamotsu Kitabayashi2, Susumu Sato3, Sohee Shin4
1Graduate School of Natural Science and Technology, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan
2Tokyo University of Science, Tokyo, Japan
3Kanazawa Institute of Technology, Kanazawa, Japan
4Graduate School of Medicine, Gifu University, Gifu, Japan
Received October 1st, 2012; revised November 5th, 2012; accepted November 17th, 2012
This study aimed to examine the relationships among four coordination tests with different movement
styles according to gender difference and hand dominance. The subjects performed the coordinated force
exertion test, the moving beans with tweezers test and the Purdue pegboard test for three trials as well as
the pursuit rotor test for seven trials with the dominant and non-dominant hands. Significant and low cor-
relations were found between the moving beans with tweezers test and the Purdue pegboard test for both
hands in females but not among the other tests. Significant correlations were found for both hands in
males and females in all tests, showing a significant gender difference between correlations only in the
pursuit rotor test. In conclusion, relationships among the four tests for both hands were low, and each test
is highly unique. In addition, females have higher relationships between dominant and non-dominant
hands, and the tendency is marked, particularly in tests that involve pursuing a moving target.
Keywords: Coordination Tests; Relationships; Gender Difference; Hand Dominance
Introduction
Until now, many coordination tests that mimic the various
coordinated movements of the upper limbs in daily life activi-
ties have been developed. For example, the Pegboard test and
the moving beans with tweezers test are tests that involve using
the hand and fingers skillfully and moving objects quickly
(Buddenberg & Davis, 2000; Shigematsu et al., 2001). The
former has been used to evaluate lateralized brain damage
(Mack, 1969; Vega, 1969; Desrosiers et al., 1995; Lehoux et al.,
2003), and the latter to evaluate activity levels of the elderly
(Shigematsu et al., 2001). The pursuit rotor test and the coordi-
nated force exertion test are tests that involve pursuing a mov-
ing target (Ferslew et al., 1982; Nakafuji & Tsuji, 2001; Naga-
sawa & Demura, 2002, 2004). The tests requiring coordination
ability of the hand and fingers, like those mentioned above,
have been mainly used for screening autonomic nerve function
and for the rehabilitation of cooperated movement in patients
with disorders of the cerebellum (Chen & Chang, 1999). These
are the useful tests to evaluate motor control function, which
coordinates movements according to each task. To smoothly
exert motor control function, information from the central and
peripheral nervous systems is integrated in the cerebrum and is
necessary to properly control movements in each motor organ.
Motor control function is interpreted to be superior when con-
traction and relaxation of muscles are performed smoothly ac-
cording to the movement of a target, and variability decreases
and accuracy increases (Brown & Bennett, 2002). The ability to
control this motor function is frequently acquired postnatally
through learning based on motor experiences. It was also re-
ported that the above stated 4 coordination tests have laterality
and that the degree differs by tests (Noguchi et al., 2006). The
dominant hand preferably used in daily life is superior in tests
that require skillful, accurate, and quick movement or coor-
dinated muscle strength exertion. In addition, according to No-
guchi et al. (2006), a significant gender difference was not
found in tests that involve quickly carrying objects to specified
locations by skillfully using the hands and fingers but was in
tests that involve chasing a moving target. From these reports,
it is also assumed that the pegboard test, the moving beans with
tweezers test, the pursuit rotor test and the coordinated force
exertion test differ in their relationships between the dominant
and non-dominant hands or between males and females. The
above four coordination tests of the upper limbs have respective
similarity and uniqueness, and the coordination abilities (quick-
ness, dexterity and spatial perception, etc.) related to each test
may differ subtly. When considering the practicality and effi-
ciency of tests that similarly test the coordination ability of the
upper limbs, the uniqueness and similarity of movement evalu-
ated by each test are made clearer by examining the relation-
ships among tests. As the result, we will be able to rationally
select coordination tests according to each research purpose.
The laterality (Noguchi et al., 2006) and practice effect (Gallus
& Mathiowetz, 2003; Haward & Griffin, 2002) of human dex-
terity have been studied. However, few studies have com-
pared laterality among different movement tasks (Butki,
1994).
Methods
Subjects
The subjects were 20 male (age 20.1 ± 2.1 yrs; height 173.3
± 4.5 cm; weight 68.9 ± 11.1 kg) and 20 female adults (age
19.6 ± 1.3 yrs; height 161.4 ± 5.0 cm; weight 52.2 ± 4.9 kg)
without previous wrist injuries or nerve damage of the upper
limbs. Prior to measurement, the purpose and procedure of this
study were explained in detail, and informed written consent
was obtained from all subjects. Eighteen males and all females

H. KAWABATA ET AL.
were regarded as right-handed based on Oldfield’s inventory
(1971). Their height and weight were similar to Japanese nor-
mative values (Laboratory Physical Education in Tokyo Met-
ropolitan University, 1989) for this age.
Coordina tion Tests
This study selected the moving beans with tweezers test, the
Purdue pegboard test, the pursuit rotor test and the coordinated
strength exertion test as representative coordination tests of the
upper limbs. Shigematsu et al. (2000) reported that the moving
bean with tweezers test is effective as a test to evaluate the
operative ability of the hands and fingers. This test requires
grasping and transporting objects as quickly as possible with a
tool. The accuracy, agility and dexterity of the hands and fin-
gers relate to achievement in the test.
The Purdue pegboard test has been mainly used for the reha-
bilitation of cerebellar disorders. This test requires basic move-
ments which are important in daily life, such as grasping ob-
jects and accurately inserting them into the holes. Agility, dex-
terity and spatial cognitive ability relate to achievement in the
test. The pursuit rotor test can evaluate a decrease of coordina-
tion caused by disorders of the central and peripheral nervous
systems as a decrease of performance and requires the exertion
of hand-eye coordination and space cognitive ability.
The coordinated strength exertion test developed by Naga-
sawa and Demura (2002, 2004) uses the exertion of sub-ma-
ximal grip strength while matching a target shown on a monitor
to evaluate muscle strength, coordination, and processing of vi-
sual information.
Experimental Equipment, Procedure, and Evaluation
Methods
The Purdue Pegboard Test (Gallus & Mathiowetz, 2003)
The Purdue pegboard device (PC-7473, SAKAI) was used for
this test. This device consists of a white board with a container
and steel pins (3 mm × 25 mm) in a container above the board.
Subjects were instructed to put pins at fixed position into holes
on the board as accurately and quickly as possible for 30 sec.
They alternately performed three trials each with their dominant
and non-dominant hands. Subjects who could put more pins into
fixed holes were interpreted to be superior in the test.
Moving Beans with Tweezers Test (Shigematsu et al., 2001;
Noguchi et al., 2006)
An open container A (20 cm in diameter, 2 cm in depth)
containing 60 beans (about 6 mm in diameter) was put in front
of the hand and an open container B (5 cm in diameter, 3.5 cm
in depth) was put in front of the other hand 20 cm apart (Kim et
al., 2001). Subjects were instructed to sit in front of the con-
tainers and to transport each bean using tweezers from con-
tainer A to B as rapidly and accurately as possible for 30 sec.
Subjects alternately performed three trials each with their do-
minant and non-dominant hands. Subjects who transported more
beans were interpreted to be superior in the test (Shigematsu et
al., 2001; Noguchi et al., 2006).
Coordinated Strength Exertion Test (Nagasawa &
Demura, 2002, 2004)
In this test, subjects performed a grip exertion, attempting to
minimize the differences between the grip strength and the
demand value presented with a waveform on a computer dis-
play. The digital grip measurement system (EG-100, SAKAI)
was used for this test. The demand value (5% - 25% of maxi-
mal grip strength) varied over a period of 40 sec at a frequency
of 0.3 Hz (Nagasawa et al., 2002). Subjects alternately per-
formed three trials each with their dominant and non-dominant
hands. The sum of the above differences (%) for 25 sec ex-
cluding the first 15 sec of each trial was used as an estimate
according to a previous study (Nagasawa et al., 2002). Subjects
with smaller values (%) were interpreted to have better coordi-
nated strength exertion ability.
Pursuit Rotor Test (Nagasawa & Demura, 2004;
Noguchi et al., 2005)
An apparatus was used for the pursuit rotor test (Takei,
TKK2110, Tokyo, Japan). The subjects pursued a 10 mm di-
ameter concave target placed 100 mm from the center of the
circular board turning at 50 rpm clockwise when they used the
right hand and counterclockwise when they used the left hand
with a 3 mm diameter L-type steel pin. A practice time of about
5 min with the dominant and non-dominant hands was per-
formed before the test. Subjects performed seven trials each
with the dominant and non-dominant hands. Contact time be-
tween the steel pin and the target for 1 min was used as an
evaluation parameter for the test. Subjects with longer contact
times were interpreted to be superior in the test.
Data Analysis
To assess the reliability of each test, the intra-class correla-
tion coefficient (ICC) was calculated. When significant differ-
ences were found, Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD)
was used for pair-wise comparisons. The relationships between
tests of dominant and non-dominant hands were examined by
Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The test based on the normal
distribution was performed to examine the gender difference of
correlations. The statistical significance (α) was set at p < 0.05
in this study.
Results
Table 1 shows the ICCs of the moving beans with tweezers
test, the Purdue pegboard test and the coordinated strength ex-
ertion test. Nagasawa et al. (2002) used the mean of the second
and third trials as a representative value of the last test. The
ICC of the second and third trials was high (ICC = 0.72) for
both hand dominances in males and females. Because the for-
mer two tests showed a significant difference between the se-
cond and third trials, we selected values of the two high-rank-
ing trials and calculated their ICCs again. As a result, they
showed an insignificant difference, and their ICCs ranged from
0.54 - 0.82 in the moving beans with tweezers test and from
0.50 - 0.82 in the Purdue pegboard test.
Table 2 shows the ICCs of the pursuit rotor test. Noguchi et
al. (2005) reported that measurements after the seven trials in
this test were stable. The ICC of trials six and seven was high
(0.73 - 0.88).
Table 3 shows the significant correlations between tests ac-
cording to both hand dominance and gender. Significant corre-
lations between the moving beans with tweezers test and the
Purdue pegboard test were found only between both hands in
females (r = 0.48, 0.53).
16

H. KAWABATA ET AL.
Table 1.
The ICCs between trials for coordination strength exertion, moving beens with tweezers and pegboard tests.
1 trial 2 trial 3 trial 1 - 3 trials 2 - 3 trials 2 high-ranking
trials
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F ICC F ICC F ICC
Coordinated strength
exertion test 746.5 191.9709.1178.1680.5167.53.68*0.80 1.29 0.80
Moving beans with
tweezers test 21.1 2.9 22.7 2.9 22.73.2 5.09*0.61 0.01 0.63 0.940.71
Dominant
hand
Pegboard test 17.4 1.4 17.7 1.3 18.21.3 2.07 0.24 3.27* 0.52 0.700.50
Coordinated strength
exertion test 899.6 216.6819.4142.4807.9158.84.34*0.61 0.32 0.83
Moving beans with
tweezers test 17.8 1.9 18.1 2.2 17.82.6 0.19 0.49 0.30 0.59 0.030.82
Male
(n = 20)
Non-dominant
hand
Pegboard test 15.0 1.7 16.1 1.5 16.01.2 5.87*0.34 0.13 0.62 0.040.72
Coordinated strength
exertion test 867.5 177.3775.5197.9775.2158.07.32*0.71 0.00 0.85
Moving beans with
tweezers test 21.8 3.3 22.0 2.5 23.32.2 3.67 0.50 5.84* 0.46 2.750.54
Dominant
hand
Pegboard test 16.9 1.6 17.6 1.5 17.91.5 3.79*0.44 1.41 0.72 0.000.72
Coordinated strength
exertion test 1005.7 252.7956.4195.6935.3223.52.15 0.76 0.33 0.72
Moving beans with
tweezers test 18.4 2.8 19.1 2.4 20.13.1 5.61*0.63 2.93 0.59 0.490.80
Female
(n = 20)
Non-dominant
hand
Pegboard test 15.6 1.8 15.9 1.5 16.41.7 4.83*0.69 3.52 0.70 0.410.82
Note: *p < 0.05.
Table 2.
The ICCs for the pursuit rotor test.
Dominant hand Non-dominant hand
6 trial 7 trial 6 trial 7 trial
Mean SD Mean SD F ICC Mean SD Mean SD F ICC
Male (n = 20) 47.2 11.41 47.5 13.37 0.02 0.78 40.9 11.76 44 13.03 2.35 0.73
Female (n = 20) 38.4 17.76 40.5 20.21 0.91 0.87 29.3 18.93 32.3 17.95 2.27 0.88
Table 3.
The significant correlation for both hands of males and females.
Non-dominant hand
Male (n = 20) Moving beans with
tweezers test Pegboard test Coordinated strength exertion test Pursuit rotor test
Moving beans with tweezers test 0.22 −0.17 0.07
Dominant Pegboard test 0.23 −0.25 0.32
Hand Coordinated strength exertion test −0.24 0.01 −0.19
Pursuit rotor test 0.18 0.24 −0.23
Female (n = 20) Moving beans with
tweezers test Pegboard test Coordinated strength exertion test Pursuit rotor test
Moving beans with tweezers test 0.53* 0.18 0.15
Dominant Pegboard test 0.48* −0.02 0.21
Hand Coordinated strength exertion test 0.02 0.16 −0.21
Pursuit rotor test −0.03 0.14 −0.22
Note: *p < 0.05.

H. KAWABATA ET AL.
Table 4 shows the correlations between both hands based on
gender. Significant correlations were found in all tests in males
and females (r = 0.44, 0.85), and a female’s value was higher in
the pursuit rotor test.
Discussions
Significant correlations were not found between the pursuit
rotor test and the coordinated force exertion test in males and
females, and both tests showed insignificant correlations with
the moving beans with tweezers test and the Purdue pegboard
test. It was assumed that the former tests have a significant
relationship because of similar tests that involve the pursuit of a
moving object. The coordinated force exertion test is related
mainly to grip muscle strength, because it involves chasing a
target displayed on a personal computer screen while control-
ling the exertion of grip strength (Nagasawa & Demura, 2004).
The pursuit rotor test involves chasing the target while match-
ing arms and hands to the movement of the rotating plate. This
test is related to visual sensation and special cognitive ability
because of accurate visual assessment of the spatial position of
a target and pursuing a moving target with eye movement.
From the present results, it is suggested that the ability evalu-
ated by both tests differs in spite of involving chasing the target
in both tests, and each test has high uniqueness. In addition, it is
inferred that both tests evaluate different abilities from the
Pegboard test and the moving beans with tweezers test, which
evaluate the skillful use of the fingers and quick movement of
objects.
On the other hand, the moving beans with tweezers test and
the Purdue pegboard test showed significant correlations only
in the hand dominance of females, but they were moderate or
low (r = 0.48, 0.53). It was assumed that their relationships are
high because the tests involve using the hand and fingers skill-
fully and moving objects quickly. However, the present hy-
pothesis was not always supported, because correlations were
not high. Chen and Chang (1999) reported that the test of chop-
sticks manipulation using chopsticks for physiotherapy showed
significant correlations with the tweezers dexterity test but not
with the pegboard test. Also, the present results showed insig-
nificant correlations between the Purdue pegboard test and the
moving beans with tweezers test for both hands in males, and
their relationships were also low in females. As reported in a
previous study (Chen & Chang, 1999), the relationship between
both tests may be low.
Although both tests evaluate the skillful use of the fingers
and the quick transport of objects, the former involves grasping
objects directly with the fingers, but the latter uses tools (Bud-
denberg & Davis, 2000; Sigematsu et al., 2001). In short, in
Table 4.
The correlation coefficients between both hands.
Male (n = 20)Female (n = 20)Result
Moving beans with
tweezers test 0.76* 0.69* 0.43
Pegboard test 0.55* 0.58* −0.13
Coordinated strength
exertion test 0.44* 0.72* −1.27
Pursuit rotor test 0.44* 0.85* −2.29*
Note: *p < 0.05.
spite of the same transport movement by the hand, the test con-
tent differs in the use or not of a tool. In addition, because the
Pegboard test requires the insertion of pegs into the holes on the
board as quickly and accurately as possible, the dexterity re-
quired may be more than that for the moving beans with tweez-
ers test. Hence, it is inferred that the ability evaluated by both
tests differs and that they have high uniqueness. From the
above, the relationships between the pursuit rotor test and the
coordinated force exertion test, which involve pursuing a mov-
ing target, and between the moving beans with tweezers test
and the Purdue pegboard test, which use the fingers to skillfully
transport objects quickly, are low. In short, they may each eva-
luate unique coordination abilities.
Hence, when evaluating the coordination ability of the hands
and fingers, it will be important that we use tests corresponding
to the research purpose or plural tests and synthetically evaluate
the results of each test by paying attention to the origin of
movements in each test.
When examining the correlations between both hands in the
tests according to gender, they showed high relationships in the
moving beans with tweezers test and moderate relationships in
the Purdue pegboard test in males and females. Both tests are
related to the dexterity and quickness of arm and fingers, and
similar operations are used in daily life regardless of the domi-
nant or non-dominant hands in males and females. Hence, it is
inferred that both tests showed a high relationship between do-
minant and non-dominant hands.
On the other hand, the pursuit rotor test and the coordinated
force exertion test showed a different tendency in relationships
between dominant and non-dominant hands in males and fe-
males. Noguchi et al. (2006) reported that a significant gender
difference was found in these tests. The present results showed
a significant gender difference in the correlation between do-
minant and non-dominant hands in the pursuit rotor test, being
higher in females. Both tests are similar in that they involve
chasing a moving target. However, grip muscle strength relates
mainly to the coordinated force exertion test, because the test
involves chasing a target displayed on a personal computer
screen while controlling the exertion of grip strength. In con-
trast, visual sensation and spatial cognitive ability relates mainly
to the pursuit rotor test. Although abilities related to both tests
differ somewhat, they both require coordination ability which a
person matches to the movement of the object. Haward et al.
(2002) reported that the superiority of the dominant hand is
strongly influenced by an acquired factor. Females use both
hands in many basic operations in daily life, such as cooking,
cleaning, and sewing. In short, because females frequently use
the non-dominant hand as well as the dominant hand, the dex-
terity of their non-dominant hand develops more. Hence, the
difference between both hands may not have been marked in
females. From the above, it is inferred that the moving beans
with tweezers test and the Purdue pegboard test have a high
relationship between the dominant and non-dominant hands
regardless of gender, and the relationship between the pursuit
rotor test and the coordinated force exertion test differs in males
and females, being higher in females.
In conclusion, the relationships among the four tests for both
hands are low, and each test has respective high uniqueness. In
addition, females have higher relationships between the domi-
nant and non-dominant hands, and the tendency is marked,
particularly in tests involving pursuing a moving target.
18

H. KAWABATA ET AL.
REFERENCES
Brown, S. W., & Bennett, E. D. (2002). The role of practice and auto-
maticity in temporal and nontemporal dual-task performance. Psy-
chol Research, 66, 80-89. doi:10.1007/s004260100076
Buddenberg, L. A., & Davis, C. (2000). Test-retest reliability of the
Purdue Pegboard test. American Journal of Occupational Therapy,
54, 555-558. doi:10.5014/ajot.54.5.555
Butki, B. D. (1994). Adaptation to effects of an audience during acqui-
sition of rotary pursuit skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1151-
1159.
Chen, H. M., & Chang, J. J. (1999). The skill components of a thera-
peutic chopsticks task and thier relationship with hand function tests.
Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 15, 704-770.
Desrosiers, J., Hebert, R., Bravo, G., & Dutil, E. (1995). The Purdue
Pegboard Test: Normative data for people aged 60 and over. Kaoh-
siung Journal of Medical Sciences, 17, 217-224.
doi:10.3109/09638289509166638
Ferslew, K. H., Manno, J. E., Manno, B. R., Vekovius, W. A., Hubbard,
J. M., & Bairnsfather, L. E. (1982). Pursuit meter II: A computer-
based device for testing pursuit-tracking performance. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 54, 779-784. doi:10.2466/pms.1982.54.3.779
Gallus, J., & Mathiowetz, V. (2003). Test-retest reliability of the Pur-
due Pegboard for persons with multiple sclerosis. American Journal
of Occupied Therapy, 57, 108-111. doi:10.5014/ajot.57.1.108
Haward, B. M., & Griffin, M. J. (2002). Repeatability of grip strength
and dexterity tests and the effects of age and gender. International
Archives of Occupational a nd Environmental He alth, 75, 111-119.
Lehoux, C., Evertt, J., Laplante, L., Emond, C., Trepanier, J., Brassard,
A., Rene, L., Cayer, M., Merette, C., Maziade, M., & Roy, M. (2003).
Fine motor dexterity is correlated to social functioning in schizo-
phrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 62, 269-273.
doi:10.1016/S0920-9964(02)00327-4
Mack, J. L. (1969). Validity of the Purdue pegboard as a screening test
for brain damage in a psychiatric population. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 28, 832-834. doi:10.2466/pms.1969.28.3.832
Nakafuji, A., & Tsuji, K. (2001). Learning and transfer in two percep-
tual-motor skills in duchenne muscular dystrophy. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 93, 339-352.
Nagasawa, Y., & Demura, S. (2002). Development of an apparatus to
estimate coordinated exertion of force. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
94, 899-913.
Nagasawa, Y., & Demura, S. (2004). Relationships among coordinated
exertion of force and performance on pegboard and pursuit rotor tests
using upper limbs and fingers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99,
1053-1060.
Noguchi, T., Demura, S., Nagasawa, Y., & Uchiyama, M. (2006). Prac-
tice effect and its difference of the pursuit rotor test by the dominant
and non-dominant hands. Journal of Physiological Anthropology and
Applied Human Science, 102 , 265-274.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The
Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
doi:10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
Shigematsu, R., Tanaka, K., Hooand, G., Nakagaichi, M., Chang, M.,
Takeshima, N., Noda, F., Tanaka, Y., & Mimura, K. (2001). Valida-
tion of the functional fitness age (FFA) index in older Japanese
women. Aging (Milano), 13, 385-390.
Vega, A. (1969). Use of Purdue pegboard and finger tapping perform-
ance as a rapid screening test for brain damage. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 25, 255-258.
doi:10.1002/1097-4679(196907)25:3<255::AID-JCLP2270250306>
3.0.CO;2-V