ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Validity and reliability of the Box and Block Test for individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorder.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Box and Block Test (BBT) is recognized for assessing manual dexterity; however, its reliability and validity, specifically for individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, remain underexplored. The objective of this study was to establish the validity and reliability of the BBT for individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study was conducted in community psychiatric rehabilitation centers. The participants were individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, ranging in age from 20 to 65 years. A total of seventy participants underwent the BBT, Purdue Pegboard Test (PPT), and Minnesota Manual Dexterity Test (MMDT) to assess manual dexterity. The validity and reliability of the BBT were evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: The BBT strongly correlated with the PPT across all subtests (p < 0.001) and demonstrated moderate to strong correlations with the MMDT, except for the two-hand turning subtest. Intra- and inter-rater reliability ICCs ranged from 0.80 to 0.95 (p < 0.05), and test-retest reliability ICCs were between 0.70 and 0.71 (p < 0.001). A notable moderate negative correlation was observed between manual dexterity performance and both the total score and the positive symptom subscale of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Chinese version (BPRS-C) (r = -0.42 ~ -0.56, all p <0.001). Additionally, there were significant low correlations between the BBT and monthly income (r = 0.29 ~ 0.30, all p = 0.01). Conclusions: BBT has good validity and reliability in individuals with schizophrenia. Thus, BBT has emerged as a more favorable option for clinical assessment, avoiding the limitations that hamper PPT and MMDT. The simplicity and rapidity of BBT, combined with the provision of normative data, support the creation of customized rehabilitation plans that are crucial for rehabilitation focused on vocational and daily living skills.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.