The influence of social context on the perception of assistive technology: using a semantic differential scale to compare young adults’ views from the United Kingdom and Pakistan

References

• BusinessWire. Disabled and elderly assistive technologies market [Internet]. Eastern Daylight Time. 2017 [cited 2017 Dec 20]. Available from: https://bit.ly/2YYOpFc
   Google Scholar
• WHO. World report on disability – summary. World Rep Disabil. 2011;2011;1–23.
   Google Scholar
• AF N. Inclusive design or assistive technology. In: Keates S, Lebbon C, Coleman R, editors. Incl. Des. Des. Whole Popul. [Internet]. 2003rd ed. London: Springer Verlag GmbH; 2003. p. 172–181. Available from: http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/978-1-4419-7031-2
   Google Scholar
• Sun W, Wilson MG, Schreiber D, et al. Ethical challenges related to assistive product access for older adults and adults living with a disability: a scoping review protocol. Syst Rev. 2017;6:24.
   Google Scholar
• Routhier F, Vincent C, Desrosiers J, et al. Mobility of wheelchair users: a proposed performance assessment framework. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:19–34.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. Guidelines on the provision of manual wheelchairs in less resourced settings [Internet]. World Health Organization. 2008;1(1). Available from: http://www.who.int/disabilities/publications/technology/wheelchairguidelines/en/index.html
   Google Scholar
• WHO | Assistive devices and technologies [Internet]. WHO. World Health Organization; 2016 [cited 2017 Aug 3]. Available from: http://www.who.int/disabilities/technology/en/
   Google Scholar
• Lucintel [Internet]. Glob. Wheel. Mark. by Prod. Categ. Des. Funct. end user, Reg. 2017-2022. 2017 [cited 2017 Dec 20]. Available from: http://www.lucintel.com/global-wheelchair-market-2017.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Asghar S, Torrens GE, Harland R. Cross-cultural influences on the semantics ascribed to assistive technology product and its envisaged user. Asian Conf. Media, Commun. Film. MediAsia. [Internet]. Tokyo, Japan: The International Academic Forum (IAFOR); 2018. p. 263–280. Available from: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/36484
   Google Scholar
• Asghar S, Torrens GE, Harland R. Cultural influences on perception of disability and disabled people: A comparison of opinions from students in the United Kingdom (UK) Pakistan (PAK) about a generic wheelchair using a semantic. Disabil Rehabil Assist. Technol. 2019;1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Cook AM, Polgar JM. Assistive technology: principles and practices [Internet]. 4th ed. Missouri: Elsevier Mosby; 2015. Available from: https://bit.ly/2G39xS0
   Google Scholar
• Shinohara K, Wobbrock JO. In the shadow of misperception. Proc. 2011 Annu. Conf. Hum. factors Comput. Syst. - CHI ’11 [Internet]. 2011. p. 705. Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1978942.1979044
   Google Scholar
• Pape TLB, Kim J, Weiner B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:5–20.
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch A, Depaula R. A framework for the adoption of assistive technology. Statew Assist Technol Augment Altern Commun Symp. [Internet]. 2002;1(1):1–11. Available from: http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/clever/assets/pdf/ak-SWAAAC02.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Parette P, Scherer M. Assistive technology use and stigma. Educ Train Dev Disabil. 2004;39:217–226.
   Google Scholar
• Stockton G. Stigma: addressing negative associations in product design. Int Conf Eng Prod Des Educ. 2009;1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Lanutti JNL, Medola FO, Gonçalves DD, et al. The significance of manual wheelchairs: a comparative study on male and female users. Proc Manuf. 2015;3:6079–6085.
   Google Scholar
• Ripat J, Woodgate R. The intersection of culture, disability and assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6:87–96.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede G. Culture’s consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Berry JW, Poortinga YH, Breugelmans SM, et al. Cross-cultural psychology. 3rd ed. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Matsumoto D, Juang L. Culture and psychology. 5th ed. Psychol. Akad. Pod. t. 2. Belmont (CA): Wadsworth Cengage Learning; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbett RE. The geography of thought. NewYork: The Free Press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Trembath D, Balandin S, Rossi C. Cross-cultural practice and autism. J Intell Dev Disabil. 2005;30:240–242.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff K. The semantic turn: a new foundation for design [Internet]. Artifact. New York, (NY): CRC Press; 2007. Available from: http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/artifact/article/view/1300
   Google Scholar
• Brown SE. What is disability culture? Disabil Stud Q. 2002;22:34–50.
   Google Scholar
• Brown SE. “Oh, don’t you envy us our privileged lives?” A review of the disability culture movement. Disabil Rehabil. 1997;19:339–349.
   Google Scholar
• Bickenbach JE. Disability, culture and the un convention. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:1111–1124.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. Overview of ICF components. Int Classif Funct Disabil Heal. 2001;1:10–26.
   Google Scholar
• Hammell KW. Perspectives on disability and rehabilitation: contesting assumptions; challenging practice. Saskatchewan: Elsevier; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• French S, Swain J. Understanding disability: a guide for health professionals. 1st ed. Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver M. The politics of disablement. 1st ed. In: Leonard P, editor. Critical Texts in Social Work and the Welfare State. New York (NY): Palgrave Macmillan; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes C. Disability and the importance of design for all. J Access Des. 2011;1:55–80.
   Google Scholar
• Whyte SR, Ingstad B. Disability and culture: an overview [Internet]. University of California Press; 1995. p. 3–32. Available from: http://twren.sites.luc.edu/phil389&elps423/d&c.htm
   Google Scholar
• Burr V. Social constructionism. New York (NY): Routledge; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Burr V. Social constructionism. 3rd ed. London (UK): Routledge; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Markus HR, Kitayama S. Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol Rev. 1991;98:224–253.
   Google Scholar
• Paratte P, Huer MB, Hourcade JJ. Using assistive technology focus groups with families across cultures. Educ Train Ment Retard Dev Disabil. 2003;38:429–440.
   Google Scholar
• Masuda T, Nisbett RE. Attending holistically vs. analytically: comparing the context sensibility of Japanese and American. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;81:922–934.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbett RE, Norenzayan A. Culture and cognition. Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology. 3rd ed. UK: Wiley; 2002. Available from: http://www-personal.umich.edu/∼nisbett/cultcog2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kastanakis MN, Voyer BG. The effect of culture on perception and cognition: a conceptual framework. J Bus Res. 2014;67:425–433.
   Google Scholar
• Goto SG, Ando Y, Huang C, et al. Cultural differences in the visual processing of meaning: detecting incongruities between background and foreground objects using the N400. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010;5:242–253.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbett RE, Choi I, Peng K, et al. Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychol Rev. 2001;108:291–310.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbett RE, Masuda T. Culture and point of view. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100:11163–11170.
   Google Scholar
• Crilly N. The roles that artefacts play: technical, social and aesthetic functions. Des Stud. 2010;31:311–344.
   Google Scholar
• Crilly N, Moultrie J, Clarkson PJ. Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Des Stud. 2004;25:547–577.
   Google Scholar
• Gros J. Sinn-liche Funktionen im design. Zeitschrift Für Gestaltung 1976;6–9.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff K. Klaus Krippendorff or on the Proposition that. Design. 1989;5:9–39.
   Google Scholar
• Giacomin J. What is design for meaning? J Des Bus Soc. 2017;3:167–190.
   Google Scholar
• Watson J, Lysonski S, Gillan T, et al. Cultural values and important possessions: a cross-cultural analysis. J Bus Res. 2002;55:923–931.
   Google Scholar
• Vaes K. Product stigmaticity: understanding, measuring and managing product-related stigma. Delft (Netherlands): Delft Academic Press; 2014. p.1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Vaes K, Jan P, Standaert A, et al. Measuring product-related stigma in design. Meas Prod Stigma Des. 2016;1(1):1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Loughborough University [Internet]. Ethics Approv. Human Particip. Sub-Committee; 2018 [cited 2017 Aug 30]. Available from: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/committees/ethics-approvals-human-participants/
   Google Scholar
• Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research methods in education. 6th ed. Br J Educ Stud. 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman A. Social research methods. 4th ed. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Robson C, McCartan K. Real world research. 4th ed. London: Wiley; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Corp I. Survey monkey. San Mateo (CA); 2019. [Internet]. Available from: www.surveymonkey.com
   Google Scholar
• Google L. Google Docs. 2019; Available from: https://docs.google.com/
   Google Scholar
• Typeform ©. Type Form. 2019; Available from: https://www.typeform.com/
   Google Scholar
• Jisc. Online Survey (BOS). 2019; Available from: https://www.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/
   Google Scholar
• Malhotra NK. Marketing research – an applied orientation. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ), London:Pearson Education; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Mangal SK, Mangal S. Research methodology in behavioural sciences. 1st ed. Delhi: PHI Learning; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Davis M, Jackson R, Smith T, et al. The hearing aid effect in African American and Caucasian males as perceived by female judges of the same race. Lang Speech Hear Serv.1999;30:165–172.
   Google Scholar
• Lai ML, Tsai MJ, Yang FY, et al. A review of using eye-tracking technology in exploring learning from 2000 to 2012. Educ Res Rev. 2013;10:90–115.
   Google Scholar
• Tamm M, Prellwitz M. 'If I had a friend in a wheelchair': children's thoughts on disabilities. Child Care Health Dev. 2001;27(3):223–240.
   Google Scholar
• Panek PE, Smith JL. Assessment of terms to describe mental retardation. Res Dev Disabil. 2005;26:565–576.
   Google Scholar
• Alcántara E, Artacho MA, González JC, et al. Application of product semantics to footwear design. Part I – identification of footwear semantic space applying differential semantics. Int J Ind Ergon. 2005;35:713–725.
   Google Scholar
• Ahlborn LJ, Panek PE, Jungers MK. College students’ perceptions of persons with intellectual disability at three different ages. Res Dev Disabil. 2008;29:61–69.
   Google Scholar
• Fellinghauer BAG, Roth A, Bugari K, et al. Construct validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency of the photo elicitation semantic differential scale (PESD) in disability studies. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2011;23:257–265.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott AC, Woodward WA. Statistical analsis quick reference guidebook: with SPSS examples. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Coşkunserçe O. Microsoft Excel 2016. Bilgi. giriş 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Corp I. IBM SPSS statistics for windows. New York: IBM Corp; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Mallan K. Author-illustrator. Routledge Companion to Pict. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Asghar S. Figshare [Internet]. Dataset _ Influ. Soc. Context Percept. Assist. Technol. Using a Semant. Differ. scale to Comp. young adults’ views from UK Pakistan. 2019. Available from: https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/s/28da77e6ebddf2c850df%0A
   Google Scholar
• Hall ET. Beyond culture. 2nd ed. New York: Anchor Books; 1989. Available from: https://monoskop.org/images/6/60/Hall_Edward_T_Beyond_Culture.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gooberman-Hill R, Ebrahim S. Making decisions about simple interventions: older people’s use of walking aids. Age Ageing. 2007;36:569–573.
   Google Scholar
• Shinohara K, Wobbrock JO. In the shadow of misperception. Proc. 2011 Annu. Conf. Hum. factors Comput. Syst. - CHI ’11 [Internet]. 2011;705. Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1978942.1979044
   Google Scholar
• Moalosi R, Popovic V, Hickling-Hudson A. Culture-orientated product design. Int Assoc Soc Des Res. 2010;20:175–190.
   Google Scholar
• Lu W, Čok V, Zhu R. Study on cultural differences of users’ perception towards shape characteristics. Int Conf KANSEI Eng Emot Res. LINKÖPING. 2014;1135–1146.
   Google Scholar
• Lesot M-J, Bouchard C, Detyniecki M, et al. Product shape and emotional design an application to perfume bottles. International Conference on Kansei Engineering and Emotion Research; 2010; Paric: 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Chan Cheng Yee B, Yazdanifard R, Cheng Yee α C, et al. How customer perception shape buying online decision. Glob J Manag Bus Res. 2014;14(2);13–20.
   Google Scholar
• Osgood CE, Suci GJ, Tannenbaum PH. The measurement of meaning. 2nd ed. Urbana, Chicago and London: University of Illinois Press; 1957.
   Google Scholar
• Osgood CE. Semantic differential technique in the comparative study of cultures. Am Anthropol. 2009;66:171–200.
   Google Scholar
• Petiot JF, Yannou B. Measuring consumer perceptions for a better comprehension, specification and assessment of product semantics. Int J Ind Ergon. 2004;33:507–525.
   Google Scholar
• Artacho-Ramirez MA, Diego-Mas JA, Alcaide-Marzal J. Influence of the mode of graphical representation on the perception of product aesthetic and emotional features: an exploratory study. Int J Ind Ergon. 2008;38:942–952.
   Google Scholar
• Moon H, Park J, Kim S. The importance of an innovative product design on customer behavior: development and validation of a scale. J Prod Innov Manag. 2015;32:224–232.
   Google Scholar