Mobility-related participation and user satisfaction: Construct validity in the context of powered wheelchair use

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

Volumn 5, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 305-313

  Brandt, Åse ^a,b   Kreiner, Svend ^c   Iwarsson, Susanne ^b  

^a Danish Centre for Assistive Technology   (Denmark)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

mobility devices; old age; Psychometrics; QUEST; rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DENMARK; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; WALKING DIFFICULTY; WHEELCHAIR;

AGED; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DENMARK; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MOBILITY LIMITATION; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; WHEELCHAIRS;

EID: 77954836006     PISSN: 17483107     EISSN: 17483115     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17483100903394636     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Helin S, Nilsson J, Widmark O. Statistik fran hjälpmedelscentraler 2002. (Statistics from Assistive technology Centres). Vällingby, Sweden: The Swedish Handicap Institute; 2003.
2. Brandt A , Stapelfeldt C. Forbrug af mobilitetshjlpemidler 2002-2006 - pa basis af data fra Zealand Care. (Consumption of mobility devices 2002-2006) - based on Zealand Care data, A rhus, Denmark: Danish Centre for Assistive Technology; 2009.
3. WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
4. Jette AM, Keysor J, Coster W, Ni P, Haley S. Beyond function: Predicting participation in a rehabilitation cohort. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:2087-2094.
5. UN Plenary of the General Assembly. UN Convention of the rights of persons with disabilities. Geneva: UN; 2007.
6. Samuelsson K, Wressle E. User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices: an important element in the rehabilitation process. Disabil Rehabil 2008;30:551-558.
7. Wessels R. Ask the user. User perspective in the assessment of assistive technology [thesis]. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Universitaire pers Maastricht; 2004.
8. Brandt A , Iwarsson S, Stahl A. Older people's use of powered wheelchairs for activity and participation. J Rehabil Med 2004;36:70-77.
9. Brandt A. Outcomes of rollator and powered wheelchair interventions. User satisfaction and participation. [thesis]. Lund, Sweden: Faculty of Medicine, Division of Occupational Therapy; 2005.
10. Brandt A. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and content validation of the QUEST. Technol Disabil 2006;17: 205-216.
11. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Quebec user evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology QUEST version 2.0. An outcome measure for assistive technology devices. Webster (NY): The Institute for Matching Person & Technology; 2000.
12. 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.
13. Avlund K, Era P, Davidsen M, Gause-Nilsson I. Item bias in self-reported functional ability among 75-year-old men and women in three Nordic localities. Scand J Soc Med 1996;24:206-217.
14. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales - a practical guide to their development and use. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
15. Rosenbaum PR. Criterion-related construct validity. Psychometrika 1989;54:625-633.
16. Rasch G. An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. Br J Math Stat Psychol 1966;19:49-57.
17. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;6:197-233.
18. Andersen EB. Sufficient statistics and latent trait models. Psychometrika 1977;42:69-81.
19. Fisher GH, Molenaar IW, editors. Rasch models. Foundations, recent developments and applications. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1985.
20. Bartholomew DJ. The statistical approach to social measurement. San Diego, US: Academic Press; 1996.
21. Davies A, de Souza LH, Frank AO. Changes in the quality of life in severely disabled people following provision of powered indoor/outdoor chairs. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:286-290.
22. Petterson I, Törnquist K, Ahlström G. The effect of an outdoor powered wheelchair on activity and participation in users with stroke. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2006;1:235-246.
23. Jedeloo S, de Witte L, Linssen B, Schrijvers AJP. Client satisfaction with service delivery of assistive technology for outdoor mobility. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:550-557.
24. Wressle E, Samuelsson K. User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices. Scand J Occup Ther 2004;11:143-150.
25. Wessels RD, de Witte LP. 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.
26. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec User Evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Montreal, Canada: Universite de Montreal and Centre de recherche de l'Institut universitaire de geriatrie de Montreal; 1997.
27. Kreiner S, Christensen KB. Analysis of local dependence and multidimensionality in graphical loglinear Rasch models. Commun Stat 2004;33:1239-1276.
28. Kreiner S, Christensen KB. Graphical Rasch models. In: Mesbah M, Cole BF, Lee MT, editors. Statistical methods for quality of life studies. Design, measurement and analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002. pp 187-203.
29. Kirkwood BR, Sterne JAC. Medical statistics. 2nd ed. Malden (Massachusetts): Blackwell Science; 2003.
30. Kreiner S. Digram 1.16.2. Copenhagen, Author. Computer Program. Internet. 2004. Electronic Citation. http:// staff.pubhealth.ku.dk/skm/skm/. Last accessed 4 June 2009.
31. SPSS Inc. SPSS 16.0. Chicago, US: SPSS Inc.; 2007.
32. Jette AM, Haley SM, Kooyoomijan JT. Are the ICF activity and participation dimensions distinct? J Rehabil Med 2003; 35:145-149.
33. Yorkston KM, Kuehn CM, Johnson KL, Ehde DM, Jensen MP, Amtmann D. Measuring participation in people living with multiple sclerosis: a comparison of self-reported frequency, importance and self-efficacy. Disabil Rehabil 2008;30:88-97.
34. Haak M, Fänge A, Horstmann V, Iwarsson S. Two dimensions of participation in very old age and their relations to home and neighborhood environments. Am J Occup Ther 2008;62:77-86.
35. Brown M, Dijkers MPJM, Gordon WA, Ashman T, Charatz H, Cheng Z. Participation objective, participation subjective. A measure of participation combining outsider and insider perspectives. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2004;19: 459-481.
36. Brandt A , Löfqvist C, Jo nsdottir I, Sund T, Salminen A, Werngren-Elgström M, Iwarsson S. Towards an instrument targeting mobility-related participation: Nordic cross-national reliability. J Rehabil Med 2008;40:766-772.
37. Brandt A , Löfqvist C, Jonsdottir I, Salminen A-L, Sund T, Iwarsson S. NOMO 1.0Manual. A rhus, Danmark: Hjlpemiddelinstituttet. Internet. 2009. Electronic Citation. http:// www.hmi.dk/page534.aspx?qnomo.Last accessed 4 June 2009.
38. McHorney CA. Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Annu Rev Public Health 1999;20:309-335.