Turkish adaptation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 with users of prosthetics and orthotics
Abstract
Purpose: Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST-2.0) is a standardized scale which is widely used for assessment of satisfaction of individuals using different types of assistive devices. The aim of this study was to analyze validity and reliability properties of the QUEST in individuals using prosthetics and orthotics in Turkish population.
Methods: One hundred fifty-one individuals, who uses lower extremity orthosis, spinal orthosis, lower extremity or upper extremity prosthesis were included in the study. QUEST was translated into Turkish language and administrated to the participants for two sessions with 7 days interval. Reliability of QUEST was tested with test-retest method (intraclass correlation coefficient-ICC), while internal consistency was analyzed with Cronbach alpha. The validity was assessed using the correlation between the QUEST and Visual analog scale, which measures assistive device and service satisfaction.
Results: Test-retest reliability of the QUEST was found to be perfect (ICC= 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.944-0.976). Internal consistency of the QUEST was very good. The Cronbach alpha was found 0.851 for total score, 0.801 for assistive device subscale and 0.835 for service subscale. The high correlations between QUEST and Visual analog scale defined very good validity.
Conclusion: Findings of this study revealed that Turkish QUEST is valid and reliable method and considered to be applicable for assessment of individual satisfaction with assistive device in people using prosthetics and orthotics in Turkish population.
Keywords
References
- 1. Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford P, et al. Physical Rehabilitation Outcome Measures. 2nd ed. Hamilton, Ontario/Canada: Lippicott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.
- 2. Simon S, Patrick A. Understanding and assessing consumer satisfaction in rehabilitation. J Rehabil Outcomes Meas. 1997;1:1-14.
- 3. Therriault PY, Lord MM, Desaulnier A, et al. Use of assistive technologies in daily life: A portrait of current knowledge. Edorium J Disabil Rehabil. 2018;4:1-10.
- 4. Peaco A, Halsne E, Hafner BJ. Assessing satisfaction with orthotic devices and services: a systematic literature review. J Prosthet Orthot. 2011;23:95-105.
- 5. Goldstein MS, Elliott SD, Guccione AA. The development of an instrument to measure satisfaction with physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2000;80:853-863.
- 6. Geertzen J, Gankema H, Groothoff J, et al. Consumer satisfaction in prosthetics and orthotics facilities. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2002;26:64-71.
- 7. Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Scherer MJ, et al. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:1243-1251.
- 8. 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.
- 9. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Item analysis of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Assist Technol. 2000;12:96-105.
- 10. Demers L, Ska B, Giroux F, et al. Stability and reproducibility of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). J Rehabil Out Meas. 1999;3:42-52.
- 11. Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, et al. 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.
- 12. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology versione 2.0. The Institute for Matching Persons and Technology: Webster, NewYork. 2000.
- 13. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25:3186-3191.
- 14. Feise RJ, Menke JM. Functional rating index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine. 2001;26:78-87.
- 15. Holz EM, Höhne J, Staiger-Sälzer P, Tangermann M, et al. Brain–computer interface controlled gaming: Evaluation of usability by severely motor restricted end-users. Artif Intell Med. 2013;59:111-120.
- 16. Jardón A, Gil ÁM, de la Peña AI, et al. Usability assessment of ASIBOT: a portable robot to aid patients with spinal cord injury. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol. 2011;6:320-330.
- 17. Şencan H. Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Hüner Şencan; 2005.
- 18. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420-428.
- 19. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. BMJ. 1997;314:572.
- 20. Bullens PH, van Loon CJ, de Waal Malefijt MC, et al. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:740-747.
- 21. Gauthnier-Gagnon C, Grise MC. The locomotor capabilities index: content validity. J Rehab Outcomes Meas. 1998;2:40-46.
- 22. Wright FV, Hubbard S, Nauman S, et al. Evaluation of the validity of the prostheic upper extremity functional index for children. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:518-527.
- 23. Bakhsh H, Franchignoni F, Ferriero G, et al. Translation into Arabic of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 and validation in orthosis users. Int J Rehabil Res. 2014;37:361-367.
- 24. 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.
- 25. Koumpouros Y, Karavasili A, Papageorgiou E, et al. Validation of the Greek version of the device subscale of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0). Assist Technol. 2016;28;152-158.
- 26. de Carvalho KEC, Gois Junior MB, Sa KN. 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.
- 27. Chan SC, Chan AP. The validity and applicability of the Chinese version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology for people with ppinal cord injury. Assist Technol. 2006;18;25-33.
Quebec Yardımcı Teknoloji Kullanıcı Memnuniyeti Değerlendirme 2.0 Anketi’nin protez ve ortez kullanan bireylerde Türkçe adaptasyonu
Abstract
Amaç: Quebec Yardımcı Teknoloji Kullanıcı Memnuniyeti Değerlendirme (Q-YTKMD) anketi, çok çeşitli teknolojik yardımcı cihaz kullanan bireylerin memnuniyetlerinin değerlendirilmesinde yaygın olarak kullanılan, standardize bir ankettir. Bu çalışmanın amacı Türk popülasyonunda protez ve ortez kullanan bireylerde Q-YTKMD anketinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik özelliklerini araştırmak idi.
Yöntem: Çalışmaya çeşitli alt ekstremite ortezi, gövde ortezi ve alt ekstremite veya üst ekstremite protezi kullanan 151 birey dahil edildi. Q-YTKMD anketinin Türkçe çevirisi yapılarak, bireylere 7 gün ara ile 2 kez uygulandı. Anketin güvenirliği test-tekrar test yöntemi (sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı-ICC) ile değerlendirilirken, iç tutarlılık Cronbach alpha ile analiz edildi. Anketin geçerliği, cihaz ve servis memnuniyetini sorgulayan vizüel analog skalası ile ilişkisine (Pearson korelasyon katsayısı) bakılarak değerlendirildi.
Bulgular: Q-YTKMD-TR anketinin test - tekrar test güvenilirliği mükemmel bulundu (ICC= 0,96, %95 güven aralığı: 0,944-0,976). Anketin iç tutarlık değeri çok iyi olarak tespit edildi. Cronbach alpha katsayısı, anketin toplam skoru için 0,851, yardımcı cihaz memnuniyeti alt başlığı için 0,801 ve hizmet memnuniyeti alt başlığı için 0,835 idi. Q-YTKMD-TR anketi toplam skorunun, vizüel analog skalası gösterdiği yüksek korelasyonlar, anketin çok iyi derecede geçerliliği olduğunu ifade etmekteydi.
Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre Q-YTKMD-TR anketi, protez ve ortez kullanıcılarında, bireylerin yardımcı cihaz memnuniyetini değerlendirmede geçerli ve güvenilir bir yöntem olması ile Türk popülasyonunda uygulanabileceği düşünülmektedir.
Keywords
References
- 1. Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford P, et al. Physical Rehabilitation Outcome Measures. 2nd ed. Hamilton, Ontario/Canada: Lippicott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.
- 2. Simon S, Patrick A. Understanding and assessing consumer satisfaction in rehabilitation. J Rehabil Outcomes Meas. 1997;1:1-14.
- 3. Therriault PY, Lord MM, Desaulnier A, et al. Use of assistive technologies in daily life: A portrait of current knowledge. Edorium J Disabil Rehabil. 2018;4:1-10.
- 4. Peaco A, Halsne E, Hafner BJ. Assessing satisfaction with orthotic devices and services: a systematic literature review. J Prosthet Orthot. 2011;23:95-105.
- 5. Goldstein MS, Elliott SD, Guccione AA. The development of an instrument to measure satisfaction with physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2000;80:853-863.
- 6. Geertzen J, Gankema H, Groothoff J, et al. Consumer satisfaction in prosthetics and orthotics facilities. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2002;26:64-71.
- 7. Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Scherer MJ, et al. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:1243-1251.
- 8. 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.
- 9. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Item analysis of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Assist Technol. 2000;12:96-105.
- 10. Demers L, Ska B, Giroux F, et al. Stability and reproducibility of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). J Rehabil Out Meas. 1999;3:42-52.
- 11. Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, et al. 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.
- 12. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology versione 2.0. The Institute for Matching Persons and Technology: Webster, NewYork. 2000.
- 13. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25:3186-3191.
- 14. Feise RJ, Menke JM. Functional rating index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine. 2001;26:78-87.
- 15. Holz EM, Höhne J, Staiger-Sälzer P, Tangermann M, et al. Brain–computer interface controlled gaming: Evaluation of usability by severely motor restricted end-users. Artif Intell Med. 2013;59:111-120.
- 16. Jardón A, Gil ÁM, de la Peña AI, et al. Usability assessment of ASIBOT: a portable robot to aid patients with spinal cord injury. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol. 2011;6:320-330.
- 17. Şencan H. Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Hüner Şencan; 2005.
- 18. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420-428.
- 19. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. BMJ. 1997;314:572.
- 20. Bullens PH, van Loon CJ, de Waal Malefijt MC, et al. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:740-747.
- 21. Gauthnier-Gagnon C, Grise MC. The locomotor capabilities index: content validity. J Rehab Outcomes Meas. 1998;2:40-46.
- 22. Wright FV, Hubbard S, Nauman S, et al. Evaluation of the validity of the prostheic upper extremity functional index for children. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:518-527.
- 23. Bakhsh H, Franchignoni F, Ferriero G, et al. Translation into Arabic of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 and validation in orthosis users. Int J Rehabil Res. 2014;37:361-367.
- 24. 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.
- 25. Koumpouros Y, Karavasili A, Papageorgiou E, et al. Validation of the Greek version of the device subscale of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0). Assist Technol. 2016;28;152-158.
- 26. de Carvalho KEC, Gois Junior MB, Sa KN. 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.
- 27. Chan SC, Chan AP. The validity and applicability of the Chinese version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology for people with ppinal cord injury. Assist Technol. 2006;18;25-33.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Health Care Administration |
| Journal Section | Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | January 6, 2021 |
| Submission Date | March 19, 2020 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2020 Volume: 7 Issue: 3 |
