The validity and applicability of the Chinese version of the quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology for people with spinal cord injury

Assistive Technology

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 25-33

  Chan, Sam C C ^a   Chan, Alice P S ^a  

^a HOSPITAL AUTHORITY   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Assistive technology; Exploratory factor analysis; Item analysis; Spinal cord injury; User satisfaction

Indexed keywords

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY; EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS; ITEM ANALYSIS; SPINAL CORD INJURY; USER SATISFACTION;

DOSIMETRY; PATIENT REHABILITATION; TECHNOLOGY;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANADA; CHINA; DISABLED PERSON; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; PUBLICATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF HELP; SPINAL CORD INJURY; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; CHINA; DISABLED PERSONS; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUEBEC; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF-HELP DEVICES; SPINAL CORD INJURIES; TRANSLATIONS;

EID: 33746420678     PISSN: 10400435     EISSN: 19493614     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2006.10131904     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bursick, T., Trefler, E., Fitzgerald, S., & Joseph, R. (2000). Wheelchair setting and positioning outcomes in the elderly nursing home population. In J. Winter (Ed.), Resna Proceedings (pp. 316-318). Arlington, VA: Resna Press.
2. Carr-Hill, R. A. (1992). The measurement of patient satisfaction. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 14, 236-249.
3. Chaves, E. S., Boninger, M. L., Cooper, R., Fitzgerald, S. G., Gray, D. B., & Cooper, R. A. (2004). Assessing the influence of wheelchair technology on perception of participant in spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85, 1854-1858.
4. Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine. (1999). Outcome following traumatic spinal cord injury: Clinical practice guidelines for health-care professionals. Washington, DC: Paralyzed Veterans of America.
5. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (Eds). (1986). Item analysis. Inlntroduction to classical and modern test theory (pp. 311-338). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
6. Demers, L., Monette, M., Lapierre, Y., Arnold, D. L., & Wolf- son, C. (2002). Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction With Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1/2/3), 21-30.
7. Demers, L., Ska, B., Giroux, F., & Weiss-Lambrou, R. (1999). Stability and reproducibility of the Quest User Evaluation of Satisfaction With Assistive Technology (QUEST). Journal of Rehabilitation Outcomes Measurement, 3(4), 42-52.
8. Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (1996). Development of the Quest User Evaluation of Satisfaction With Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assistive Technology, 8, 3-13.
9. Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (2000). Item analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction With Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assistive Technology, 12(2), 96-105.
10. Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (2002). The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction With Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technology and Disability, 14, 101-105.
11. Demers, L., Wessels, R., Weiss-Lambrou, R., Ska, B., & De Witte, L. P. (2001). Key dimensions of client satisfaction with assistive technology: A cross-validation of a Canadian measure in the Netherlands. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 33, 187-191.
12. Demers, L., Wessels, R. D., Weiss-Lambrou, R., Ska, B., & De Witte, L. P. (1999). An international content validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction With Assistive Technology (QUEST). Occupational Therapy International, 6, 159-175.
13. DeRuyter, F. (1995). Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: Do we understand the commitment? Assistive Technology, 7, 3-16.
14. Fuhrer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., Scherer M. J., & DeRuyter, F. (2003). A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 1243-1251.
15. Jang, Y., Hsieh, C.-L., Wang, Y.-H., & Wu, Y.-H. (2004). A validity study of the WHOQOL-BREF assessment in persons with traumatic spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85, 1890-1895.
16. Keith, R. A. (1998). Patient satisfaction and rehabilitation services. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79, 1122-1128.
17. Kohn, J., LeBlanc, M., & Mortola, P. (1994). Measuring quality and performance of assistive technology: Results of a perspective monitoring programme. Assistive Technology, 6, 120-125.
18. Leung, K. F., Tay, M. S. M., Chu, M. M. L., Ng, S. S. W., & Wong, C. W. W. (2003). The interview version of the WHOQOL-BREF (HK). Hong Kong: Hospital Authority.
19. Minkel, J. L. (1996). Assistive technology and outcome measurement: Where do we begin? Technology and Disability, 5, 285-288.
20. Osborne, C. E. (1997). Developing instruments for assessment of patient outcomes. Journal of Rehabilitation Outcomes and Measurement, 2, 18-25.
21. Portney, L. G., & Watkins, M. P. (1993). Correlation. In L. G. Portney & M. P. Watkins (Eds.), Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (pp. 439-456). Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange.
22. Robertson, S. C, & Colborn, A. P. (1997). Outcomes research for rehabilitation issues and solutions. Journal of Rehabilitation Outcomes and Measurement, 2, 15-23.
23. Scherer, M. J. (2000). Living in the state of stuck: How technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
24. Scherer, J. S., & Cushman, L. A. (2001). Measuring subjective quality of life following spinal cord injury: A validation study of the assistive technology device predisposition assessment. Disability and Rehabilitation, 23, 387-393.
25. Skevington, S. M., Lofty, M., & O'Connell, K. A. (2004). The World Health Organization's WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group. Quality of Life Research, 13, 299-310.
26. Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (1989). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press.
27. Vincent, C, & Demers, L. (2002). Les lits électronique a domicile? Provons-nous dormer sur nos deux oreilles [The electric beds at home? Can we sleep soundly]. Occupational Therapy Now, 4(2), 11-14.
28. Weiss-Lambrou, R. (2000). Satisfaction and comfort. In M. J. Scherer (Ed.), Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation (pp. 77-94). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
29. Weiss-Lambrou, R., Tremlay, O, LeBlanc, R., Lacoste, M., & Dansereau, J. (1999). Wheelchair seating aids: How satisfied are consumers? Assistive Technology, 11, 43-53.
30. Wessels, R. D., & De Witte L. P. (2003). Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 267-272.
31. Wessels, R. D., De Witte, L. P., Weiss-Lambrou, R., Demers, L., & Wijhuizen, G. (1998). A Dutch version of QUEST (D- QUEST) applied as a routine follow-up within the service delivery process. In I. Placiencia Porrero & E. Ballabio (Eds.), Improving the quality of life for the European citizen (pp. 420-424). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
32. World WHOQOL Group. (1998). Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28, 551-558.