Test–retest reliability and agreement of the Satisfaction with the Assistive Technology Services (SATS) instrument in two Nordic countries

References

• Ahtola S, Heinonen A, Haikonen K, Anttila H 2011 Adaptation and validation of the modified KWAZO and EATS-2D instruments into Finnish circumstances. In: Gelderblom GJ, Soede M, Adrianens L, Miesenberger K (eds) Everyday technology for independence and care. Assistive technology research series, Volume 29, pp 300–307. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, IOS Press BV
   Google Scholar
• Andresen E 2000 Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 81: S15–S20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auger C, Demers L, Gelinas I, Routhier F, Mortenson WB, Miller WC 2010 Reliability and validity of telephone administration of the wheelchair outcome measure for middle-aged and older users of power mobility devices. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 42: 574–581
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berndt T, van der Pijl D, De Witte LP 2009 Existing models and instruments for the selection of assistive technology in rehabilitation practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 16: 146–158
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bland J, Altman D 1997 Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. British Medical Journal 314: 572
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt Å 2005a Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and content validation of the QUEST. Technology and Disability 17: 205–216
   Google Scholar
• Brandt Å 2005b Outcomes of rollator and powered wheelchair interventions. User satisfaction and participation. Dissertation, Faculty of Medicine, Division of Occupational Therapy, Lunds University, Lund, Sweden
   Google Scholar
• Brandt Å, Kreiner S, Iwarsson S 2010 Mobility-related participation and user satisfaction: Construct validity in the context of powered wheelchair use. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 5: 305–313
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brazil K, Cupido C, Taniguchi A, Howard M, Akhtar-Denesh N, Frolic A 2013 Assessing family members’ satisfaction with information sharing and communication during hospital care at the end of life. Journal of Palliative Medicine 16: 82–86
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cook A, Polgar J 2008 Cook and Hussey assistive technologies. Principles and practice, 3rd edn. St. Louis, Missouri, USA, Mosby Elsevier
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B 1996 Development of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Assistive Technology 8: 3–13
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B 2000 Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology-QUEST Version 2.0. An Outcome Measure for Assistive Technology Devices. New York, The Institute for Matching Person and Technology
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Wessels R, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B, De Witte LP 2001 Key dimensions of client satisfaction with assistive technology: A cross-validation of Canadian measure in the Netherlands. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 33: 187–191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Monette M, Descent M, Jutai J, Wolfson C 2002 The psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS): Translation and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a Canadian-French version. Quality of Life Research 11: 583–592
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet H, Terwee C, Knol DL, Bouter LM 2006 When to use agreement versus reliability measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59: 1033–1039
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet H, Terwee C, Mokkink LB, Knol DL 2011 Measurement in medicine. Practical guides to biostatistics and epidemiology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
   Google Scholar
• Dijcks B, Wessels R, De Vlieger SLM, Post MWM 2006 KWAZO, a new instrument to assess the quality of service delivery in assistive technology provision. Disability and Rehabilitation 28: 909–914
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donabedian A 2003 An introduction to quality assurance in health care. New York, Oxford University Press
   Google Scholar
• Gerdes N, Funke UN, Schuwer U, Themann P, Pfeiffer G, Meffert C 2012 Scores of independence for neurologic and geriatric rehabilitation (SINGER) – development and validation of a new assessment instrument. Rehabilitation 51: 289–299
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heart-Line C 1994 European service delivery systems in rehabilitation technology. Brussels, Belgium, iRv, Hoensbroek
   Google Scholar
• Holbrook A, Green M, Krosnick J 2003 Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires: Comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias. Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 79–125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwarsson S, Isacsson Å 1996 Development of a novel instrument for occupational therapy assessment of the physical environment in the home – a methodologic study on “the enabler”. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research 16: 227–244
   Google Scholar
• Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hrobjartsson A, Roberts C, Shoukri M, Streiner DL 2011 Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 96–106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker J, Fuhrer M, Jutai J, Demers L, Scherer M, De Ruyter F 2010 Treatment theory, intervention specification, and treatment fidelity in assistive technology outcomes research. Assistive Technology 22: 129–138
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker J, Scherer M, Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, De Ruyter F 2005 Psychometric and administrative properties of measures used in assistive technology device outcomes research. Assistive Technology 17: 7–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink L, Tewee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC 2010 The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 63: 737–745
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink L, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC 2012 COSMIN checklist manual. www.cosmin.nl, www.emgo.nl
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service NAV 2013 Statistics of Assistive Technology in Norway. Department of Assistive Technology NAV, The Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service NAV, Oslo, Norway
   Google Scholar
• Nunnaly J, Bernstein L 1997 Psychometric theory. New York, McGraw-Hill Higher, Inc
   Google Scholar
• Rao K, Peters DH, Bandeen-Roche K 2006 Towards patient-centered health services in India – A scale to measure patient perceptions of quality. International Journal of Quality in Health Care 18: 414–421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackett D, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS 2007 Evidence based medicine: What is and what it isn’t. 1996. Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research 455: 3–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelsson K, Wressle E 2008 User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices: An important element in the rehabilitation process. Disability and Rehabilitation 30: 551–558
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer M 2002 The change in emphasis from people to person: Introduction to the special issue on assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation 24: 1–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slaug B, Schilling O, Helle T, Iwarsson S, Carlsson G, Brandt Å 2012 Unfolding the phenomenon of inter-rater agreement: A multi-component approach for in-depth examination was proposed. Exploration and Development of Methodology for Accessibility Assessments. Doctoral thesis, Lund University, Sweden
   Google Scholar
• Steeh C 2008 Telephone surveys. In: Leeuw D, Hox JJ, Dillman DA (eds) International handbook of survey methodology, pp 221--238. New York, NY, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
   Google Scholar
• Streiner D 2003 Statistical development and applications. Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment 80: 99–103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streiner D, Norman G 2008 Health Measurement Scales – a practical guide to their development and use. New York, NY, Oxford University Press
   Google Scholar
• Sund T 2004 Når rullestolen er en del av livet. En studie om fornøydhet blant brukere av manuelle rullestoler i aldersgruppen 18-65 år. Hovedfagsoppgave (When the Wheelchair is Part of Life. A Study on Satisfaction among Users of Manual Wheelchairs in the Age Group 18-65 years). Master thesis, Oslo, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
   Google Scholar
• Sund T, Iwarsson S, Andersen MC, Brandt Å 2013 Documentation of and satisfaction with the service delivery process of electric powered scooters among adult users in different national contexts. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 8: 151–160
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Swaine-Verdier A, Doward L, Hagell P, Thorsen H, McKenna SP 2004 Adapting quality of life instruments. Value Health 7: 27–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weir J 2005 Quantifying test--retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 19: 231–240
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willis G, Reeve B, Barofsky I 2005 The use of cognitive interviewing techniques in quality-of-life and patient-reported outcomes assessment. In: Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder C (eds) Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods and applications, pp 610--622. Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization 2011 The world report on disability. Geneva, Switzerland, The World Bank
   Google Scholar
• Wressle E, Samuelsson K 2004 User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 11: 143–150
   Google Scholar