Cross-Cultural Validation of Quebec User Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 for Spanish Population (QUEST-2.0 ES)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Procedure
2.2. Characteristics of Sample and Variables
2.3. Data Analysis
2.4. Ethical Concerns
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
3.2. Psychometrics
4. Discussion
Study Limitations
5. Conclusions
- The QUEST 2.0-ES version has shown good psychometric properties in terms of validity and test–retest reliability, and it is a good tool for assessing the user’s satisfaction with assistive technology and the services linked to it.
- In general, the user’s satisfaction with the AT assessed is high or very high in both samples, and the score regarding the device itself is higher in comparison to the service for AT Scale. The items most important to the participants with regard to satisfaction are: “easy to use”, “weight”, and “safety”.
- The assistive devices assessed were grouped into seven types, with those for grooming and domestic activities being the devices with the highest scores.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Scherer, M.J.; Parette, P. Assessment and Match for Effective Assistive Technology. In Spinal Cord Injuries—Management and Rehabilitation, 1st ed.; Sisto, S.A., Druin, E., Sliwinski, M.M., Eds.; Mosby Elsevier: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2009; pp. 296–297. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 9999:2016; Productos de Apoyo Para Personas con Discapacidad. Clasificación y Terminología. AENOR (Comité Técnico de Normalización): Madrid, Spain, 2016.
- Cowan, R.E.; Fregly, B.J.; Boninger, M.L.; Chan, L.; Rodgers, M.M.; Reinkensmeyer, D.J. Recent trends in assistive technology for mobility. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2012, 9, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cook and Polgar, Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice; Mosby: Maryland Heights, MO, USA, 2008; Volume 3.
- Bernd, T.; van der Pijl, D.; de Witte, L.P. Existing models and instruments for the selection of assistive technology in rehabilitation practice. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 2009, 16, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- DeRuyter, F. The importance of outcome measures for assistive technology service delivery systems. Technol. Disabil. 1997, 6, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MFuhrer, J. Assistive Technology Outcomes Research. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2001, 80, 528–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuhrer, M.J.; Jutai, J.W.; Scherer, M.J.; DeRuyter, F. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil. Rehabil. 2003, 25, 1243–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, B.; Zhao, H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist. Technol. 1993, 5, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Demers, L.; Weiss-Lambrou, R.; Ska, B. Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist. Technol. 1996, 8, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demers, L.; Ska, B.; Giroux, F.; Weiss-Lambrou, R. Stability and Reproducibility of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). J. Rehabil. Outcomes Meas 1999, 3, 42–52. [Google Scholar]
- Demers, L.; Wessels, R.D.; Weiss-Lambrou, R.; Ska, B.; de Witte, L.P. An international content validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Occup. Ther. Int. 1999, 6, 159–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demers, L.; Monette, M.; Lapierre, Y.; Arnold, D.L.; Wolfson, C. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil. Rehabil. 2002, 24, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Demers, L.; Weiss-Lambrou, R.; Ska, B. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technol. Disabil. 2002, 14, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wessels, R.D.; de Witte, L.P. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices. Disabil. Rehabil. 2003, 25, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Demers, L.; Wessels, R.; Weiss-Lambrou, R.; Ska, B.; de Witte, L.P. Key dimensions of client satisfaction with assistive technology: A cross-validation of a Canadian measure in The Netherlands. J. Rehabil. Med. 2001, 33, 187–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mao, H.-F.; Chen, W.-Y.; Yao, G.; Huang, S.-L.; Lin, C.-C.; Huang, W.-N.W. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): The development of the Taiwanese version. Clin. Rehabil. 2010, 24, 412–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrera, M.; Andrés, C. Validación de la Versión en Español de la Evaluación de Quebec de Usuarios con Tecnología de Asistencia (Quest 2.0); Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Bogotá, Facultad de Medicina: Bogotá, Colombia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S.-H.; Jung, B.-K.; Park, S.-Y. Korean Translation and Psychometric Properties of Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction Assistive Technology 2.0. J. Korea Acad. Coop. Soc. 2013, 14, 3284–3292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de Carvalho, K.E.C.; Júnior, M.B.G.; Sá, K.N. Translation and validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) into Portuguese. Rev. Bras. Reumatol. 2014, 54, 260–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodrigues, S.M. Validação Intercultural do Instrumento de Medição—Evaluation de la Satisfaction Envers Une Aide Technique, Versão 2.0; Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Coimbra: Coimbra, Portugal, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Colucci, M.; Tofani, M.; Trioschi, D.; Guarino, D.; Berardi, A.; Galeoto, G. Reliability and validity of the Italian version of Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST-IT 2.0) with users of mobility assistive device. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2019, 16, 251–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Berardi, A.; Galeoto, G.; Lucibello, L.; Panuccio, F.; Valente, D.; Tofani, M. Athletes with disability’ satisfaction with sport wheelchairs: An Italian cross sectional study. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2020, 16, 420–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vidal García Alonso, J.; Prat Pastor, J.; Rodríguez-Porreor Miret, C.; Sández Lacuesta, J.; Vera Luna, P. Libro Blanco I+D+I al servicio de las Personas con Discapacidad y las Personas Mayores; Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología: Madrid, Spain, 2003; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Encuesta de Discapacidad, Autonomía Personal y situaciones de dependencia en España, 2008. Boletín Inf. Del INE 2009, 10, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Jutai, J.; Day, H. Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS©). Technol. Disabil. 2002, 14, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scherer, M.; Craddock, G. Matching Person & Technology (MPT) assessment process. Technol. Rehabil. 2002, 14, 125–131. [Google Scholar]
- García, T.P.; Garabal-Barbeira, J.; Trillo, P.P.; Figueira, O.V.; Díaz, C.N.; Loureiro, J.P. A Framework for a New Approach to Empower Users Through Low-Cost and Do-It-Yourself Assistive Technology. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beaton, D.E.; Bombardier, C.; Guillemin, F.; Ferraz, M.B. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000, 25, 3186–3191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Harris, P.A.; Taylor, R.; Minor, B.L.; Elliott, V.; Fernandez, M.; O’Neal, L.; McLeod, L.; Delacqua, G.; Delacqua, F.; Kirby, J.; et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J. Biomed. Inform. 2019, 95, 103208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pereira, A.; Patrício, T. SPSS—Guia Prático de Utilização, 8th ed.; Ediçoes Sílabo, Lda: Lisboa, Portugal, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Akoglu, H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk. J. Emerg. Med. 2018, 183, 91–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fortin, M. (Ed.) Fundamentos e Etapas do Processo de Investigação; Lusociência: Lisboa, Portugal, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Koo, T.K.; Li, M.Y. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J. Chiropr. Med. 2016, 15, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scherer, M.; Jutai, J.; Fuhrer, M.; Demers, L.; Deruyter, F. A framework for modeling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs). Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2007, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Galeoto, G.; Colucci, M.; Guarino, D.; Esposito, G.; Cosma, E.; De Santis, R.; Grifoni, G.; Valente, D.; Tofani, M. Exploring Validity, Reliability, and Factor Analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology in an Italian Population: A Cross-Sectional Study. Occup. Ther. Health Care 2018, 32, 380–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pousada, T.; Pereira, J.; Groba, B.; Nieto-Riveiro, L.; Pazos, A. Empowering Personal Autonomy through AT with Low Cost. Global Research, Innovation, and Education in Assistive Technology (GREAT) Summit. 2017. Available online: https://www.who.int/phi/implementation/assistive_technology/great_summit/GS77_POUSADA_LowCost_AT_PersonalAutonomy.pdf?ua=1 (accessed on 28 February 2020).
- Santos, A.V.F.; Silveira, Z.C. AT-d8sign: Methodology to support development of assistive devices focused on user-centered design and 3D technologies. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2020, 42, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.H.; Kim, D.K.; Cha, Y.H.; Kwon, J.Y.; Kim, D.H.; Kim, S.J. Personalized assistive device manufactured by 3D modelling and printing techniques. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2019, 14, 526–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binedell, T.; Meng, E.; Subburaj, K. Design and development of a novel 3D-printed non-metallic self-locking prosthetic arm for a forequarter amputation. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2020, 45, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variables | Sample 1 | Sample 2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | % | N | % | ||
Gender | Unknown | 1 | 3.8 | ||
Men | 17 | 65.4 | 18 | 62.07 | |
Women | 8 | 30.8 | 11 | 37.93 | |
Type of Diagnosis | Spinal Cord Injury | 10 | 38.46 | 7 | 23.33 |
Neuromuscular Disorders | 1 | 3.85 | 5 | 16.67 | |
Deafness | 9 | 30 | |||
Amputation (Lower limb) | 2 | 7.69 | |||
Brain Injury | 2 | 7.69 | 7 | 23.33 | |
Traumatic Brain Injury | 1 | 3.33 | |||
Blindness/Low Vision | 1 | 3.33 | |||
Other/Not Specified | 11 | 42.31 | |||
Type of AT | Mobility | 26 | 100 | 14 | 46.67 |
Hearing Aids | 9 | 30 | |||
Grooming | 1 | 3.33 | |||
Dressing | 1 | 3.33 | |||
Feeding | 2 | 6.67 | |||
Read/Write | 2 | 6.67 | |||
Domestic Tasks | 1 | 3.33 | |||
Range age | Younger than 25 | 1 | 3.8 | 4 | 13.33 |
26–35 | 6 | 23.1 | 3 | 10 | |
36–45 | 10 | 38.5 | 7 | 23.33 | |
46–55 | 3 | 11.5 | 4 | 13.33 | |
Older than 56 | 5 | 19.2 | 12 | 40 |
Sample 1 (n = 26) | Sample 2 (n = 32) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Test | Retest | Test | Retest | |||||
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
Dimensions | 4.23 | 0.82 | 3.85 | 1.01 | 4.07 | 1.05 | 4.07 | 1.01 |
Weight | 3.69 | 1.16 | 3.46 | 1.30 | 4.20 | 1.00 | 4.20 | 0.96 |
Adjustments | 3.73 | 1.19 | 4.00 | 1.06 | 3.97 | 0.89 | 4.07 | 0.87 |
Safety | 3.69 | 1.29 | 3.88 | 1.18 | 4.20 | 0.81 | 4.33 | 0.71 |
Durability | 3.92 | 1.26 | 4.00 | 1.10 | 4.00 | 0.95 | 4.13 | 1.01 |
Easy to use | 4.15 | 1.01 | 4.15 | 0.97 | 4.40 | 0.77 | 4.53 | 0.57 |
Comfort | 3.81 | 1.30 | 3.77 | 1.24 | 3.80 | 1.06 | 3.93 | 1.17 |
Effectiveness | 4.35 | 0.85 | 4.23 | 0.82 | 3.97 | 1.00 | 4.00 | 1.08 |
Service delivery | 3.58 | 1.47 | 3.42 | 1.36 | 4.10 | 1.12 | 4.10 | 1.09 |
Repairs/servicing | 3.35 | 1.47 | 3.35 | 1.26 | 3.40 | 1.43 | 3.37 | 1.47 |
Professional service | 3.69 | 1.41 | 3.35 | 1.44 | 3.63 | 1.45 | 3.57 | 1.43 |
Follow-up services | 3.46 | 1.75 | 3.23 | 1.73 | 3.47 | 1.57 | 3.47 | 1.38 |
Assistive technology score | 3.95 | 0.82 | 3.92 | 0.83 | 4.075 | 0.591 | 4.158 | 0.63 |
Services score | 3.69 | 0.98 | 3.47 | 0.99 | 3.65 | 1.24 | 3.63 | 1.20 |
Total score | 3.87 | 0.81 | 3.77 | 0.82 | 3.93 | 0.74 | 3.98 | 0.77 |
Sample 1 | Sample 2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Test | Retest | Test | Retest | |
Dimensions | 6.5% | 8.1% | 7.53% | 10.64% |
Weight | 7.8% | 6.8% | 13.98% | 14.89% |
Adjustments | 7.8% | 5.4% | 8.60% | 6.38% |
Safety | 22.1% | 21.6% | 7.53% | 7.45% |
Durability | 11.7% | 9.5% | 5.38% | 11.70% |
Easy to use | 9.1% | 10.8% | 22.58% | 22.34% |
Comfort | 16.9% | 20.3% | 9.68% | 10.64% |
Effectiveness | 13.0% | 13.5% | 12.90% | 9.57% |
Service delivery | 3.23% | 2.13% | ||
Repairs/servicing | 2.6% | 2.7% | 5.38% | 2.13% |
Professional service | 1.08% | |||
Follow-up services | 2.6% | 1.4% | 2.15% | 2.13% |
Items | Sample 1 | Sample 2 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cronbach Alpha | Spearman’s Rho | ICC (95%) | Cronbach Alpha | Spearman’s Rho | ICC (95%) | |||
Test | Retest | Test | Retest | |||||
ATS Score | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.98 | 0.94 (0.91–0.97) | 0.78 | 0.83 | 0.74 | 0.87 (0.79–0.93) |
Services score | 0.65 | 0.63 | 0.89 | 0.81 (0.68–0.91) | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.75 | 0.92 (0.86–0.95) |
Total score | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.97 | 0.94 (0.89–0.97) | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.78 | 0.93 (0.89–0.96) |
Items | Joint Analysis of Sample 1 and Sample 2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Cronbach Alpha | Spearman’s Rho | ICC (95%) | ||
Test | Retest | |||
ATS | 0.83 | 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.92 (0.88–0.95) |
SV | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.81 | 0.87 (0.81–0.92) |
TS | 0.87 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.93 (0.90–0.96) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Guerreiro, J.; Jiménez-Arberas, E.; Porto Trillo, P.; Vilar Figueira, O.; Saénz-López Buñuel, P.; Pais, S.; Tierra Orta, J.; Pousada García, T. Cross-Cultural Validation of Quebec User Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 for Spanish Population (QUEST-2.0 ES). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9349. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159349
Guerreiro J, Jiménez-Arberas E, Porto Trillo P, Vilar Figueira O, Saénz-López Buñuel P, Pais S, Tierra Orta J, Pousada García T. Cross-Cultural Validation of Quebec User Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 for Spanish Population (QUEST-2.0 ES). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(15):9349. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159349
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuerreiro, Joao, Estíbaliz Jiménez-Arberas, Patricia Porto Trillo, Olalla Vilar Figueira, Pedro Saénz-López Buñuel, Sandra Pais, José Tierra Orta, and Thais Pousada García. 2022. "Cross-Cultural Validation of Quebec User Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 for Spanish Population (QUEST-2.0 ES)" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 15: 9349. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159349