Evaluation of satisfaction with geospatial assistive technology (ESGAT): a methodological and usability study

References

• Froehlich JE, Brock AM, Caspi A, et al. Grand challenges in accessible maps. Interactions. 2019;26(2):78–81.
   Google Scholar
• Li A, Saha M, Gupta A, et al. Interactively Modeling and Visualizing Neighborhood Accessibility at Scale: An Initial Study of Washington DC. Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility; 2018 October; New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery; 2018. p. 444–446. Available from: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3234695.3241000
   Google Scholar
• Smith EM, Giesbrecht EM, Mortenson WB, et al. Prevalence of wheelchair and scooter use among community-dwelling Canadians. Phys Ther. 2016;96(8):1135–1142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prémont M-É, Vincent C, Mostafavi MA, et al. Geospatial assistive technologies for wheelchair users: a scoping review of usability measures and criteria for mobile user interfaces and their potential applicability. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol. 2020;15(2):119–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brock AM, Froehlich JE, Guerreiro J, et al. SIG: making maps accessible and putting accessibility in maps. Extended abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2018 April 21–22; Montreal, Canada. Available from: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3185373
   Google Scholar
• Mostafavi M. MobiliSIG: development of a geospatial assistive technology for navigation of people with motor disabilities. Paper presented at: Spatial Knowledge and Information - Canada conference; 2015 February 26–March 1; Banff, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Google [Internet]. Mountain View (CA): Google LLC; Introducing “wheelchair accessible” routes in transit navigation; 2018 [cited 2019 Jul 15]. Available from: https://www.blog.google/products/maps/introducing-wheelchair-accessible-routes-transit-navigation/
   Google Scholar
• Local Guides [Internet]. Mountain View (CA): Google LLC; 2019 [cited 2019 Jul 15]. Available from: https://maps.google.com/localguides/signup?utm_campaign=lg-gv93nayx91yy&utm_source=google&utm_medium=maps_promo&utm_term=owned&utm_content=dr_signup_page
   Google Scholar
• Google [Internet]. Mountain View (CA): Google LLC; Building a map for everyone; 2017 [cited 2019 Jul 15]. Available from: https://www.blog.google/products/maps/building-map-everyone/
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 11: Guidance on usability: ISO 9241-11:2018. Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:ed-2:v1:en
   Google Scholar
• Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986;35(6):382–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prémont M-É, Vincent C, Mostafavi MA. Geospatial assistive technologies: potential usability criteria identified from manual wheelchair users. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol. 2019;1–12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1620351
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview of recent progress. Technol Disabil. 2002;14(3):101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Almanasreh E, Moles R, Chen TF. Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(2):214–221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumont C, Vincent C, Mazer B. Development of a standardized instrument to assess computer task performance. Am J Occup Ther. 2002;56(1):60–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. 2002;24(1–3):21–30.
   Google Scholar
• Bergström AL, Samuelsson K. Evaluation of manual wheelchairs by individuals with spinal cord injuries. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2006;1(3):175–182.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Karmarkar AM, Collins DM, Kelleher A, et al. Satisfaction related to wheelchair use in older adults in both nursing homes and community dwelling. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009;4(5):337–343.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demers L, Wessels RD, Weiss-Lambrou R, et al. An international content validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Occup Ther Int. 1999;6(3):159–175.
   Google Scholar
• 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(6):267–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan SCC, Chan A. The validity and applicability of the Chinese version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction With Assistive Technology for people with spinal cord injury. Assist Technol. 2006;18(1):25–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mao H-F, Chen W-Y, Yao G, et al. 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(5):412–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang W-J, Hwang S, Chung Y. Test-retest reliability of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology 2.0-Korean version for individuals with spinal cord injury. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27(5):1291–1293.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carvalho K. d, Gois Júnior MB, Sá KN. Tradução e validação do Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) para o idioma português do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia. 2014;54(4):260–267.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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(3):152–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol. 1996;8(1):3–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Item analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol. 2000;12(2):96–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singal AG, Higgins PD, Waljee AK. A primer on effectiveness and efficacy trials. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2014;5(1):e45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cambridge dictionary [Internet]. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; Efficiency; 2020 [cited 2020 Jan 14]. Available from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/efficiency
   Google Scholar
• Schulz R, Wahl HW, Matthews JT, et al. Advancing the aging and technology agenda in gerontology. Gerontologist. 2015;55(5):724–734.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen J. What is usability. In: Usability engineering. Boston (MA): Academic Press; 1993. p. 23–48.
   Google Scholar