Sign. Pair 1 Cli 1–cli 2 0.17568 1.08991 0.12670 0.170 0.501 0.000 Pair 2 Cli 1 dominant–cli 2 dominant 0.10811 1.02154 0.16794 0.524 0.550 0.000 Pair 3 Cli 1 non-dominant–cli 2 non-dominant 0.24324 1.16441 0.19143 0.212 0.451 0.002 Pair 4 Dominant–non-dominant −0.35135 0.88870 0.14610 0.021 higher (more lax) than cli 2, though not significantly. Finally, the dominant and non-dominant hand (pair 4, scores of cli 1 and 2 added) were compared and a significant difference was found. The non-dominant hand scored more lax than the dominant hand. Significant correlations are found between the scores of cli 1 and 2 (pairs 1–3). The dominant hands from both clinicians were added, this score was compared with the other tests and no significant (Cli versus Mayo) or very low correlations (Cli versus Beighton (0.37), Cli versus GE (0.43)) were found. Between the other tests only low correlations were found: Beighton versus Mayo (0.49), GE versus Mayo (0.57), GE versus Beighton (0.63). 6. Discussion Both clinicians scored the same level of wrist laxity while using their own techniques. Because cli 1 scored (not significantly) higher than cli 2 in all the tests, it may be assumed cli 1 has a higher reference point at this specific population. The difference found between the dominant and non-dominant hand was in contrast with earlier results [6]. A possible reason can be because the muscles strength and tension is likely higher in the dominant hand, the wrist becomes stiffer. The clinical judgment had no or very low correlation with any of the other methods. Correlations, though low, were found between the other methods. Assuming the clinicians estimation of wrist joint laxity is correct, the other methods are not capable of quantifying what they define as wrist joint laxity. Creating a standardized and more detailed scale for clinicians to score the level of wrist joint laxity seems to be the best option for reaching an objective measurement tool. Also, the clinicians test the wrist by translating the hand dorsal and palmar, a measurement device that simulates this movement may be more successful in determining the level of laxity.