Psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of the ability to manage technology in everyday life

References

• Emiliani PL. Assistive Technology (AT) versus Mainstream Technology (MST): The research perspective. Technol Disabil 2006;18:19–29.
   Google Scholar
• Hickman JM, Rogers WA, Fisk AD. Training older adults to use new technology. J Gerontol 2007;62B:77–84.
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger B. Introduction. In: Jaeger B, editor. Young technologies in old hands: An international view on senior citizens' utilization of ICT. Copenhagen: DJÖF Publishing; 2005. p. 9–23.
   Google Scholar
• Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Sankaran NN, Rogers WA, . Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (CREATE). Psychol Aging 2006;21:333–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slegers K, van Boxtel MPJ, Jolles J. The effects of computer training and internet usage on the use of everyday technology by older adults: A randomized controlled study. Educ Gerontol 2007;33:91–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selwyn N. Apart from technology: Understanding people's non-use of information and communication technologies in everyday life. Technol Soc 2003;25:99–116.
   Google Scholar
• Mollenkopf H, Kaspar R. Elderly people's use and acceptance of information and communication technologies. In: Jaeger B, editor. Young technologies in old hands: An international view on senior citizens' utilization of ICT. Copenhagen: DJÖF Publishing; 2005. p. 41–58.
   Google Scholar
• Nygård L, Starkhammar S. The use of everyday technology by people with dementia living alone: Mapping out the difficulties. Aging Ment Health 2007;11:144–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ala TA, Berck LG, Popovich AM. Using the telephone to call for help and caregiver awareness in Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2005;19:79–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg L, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire (ETUQ): Psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of competence in technology use. Occup Ther J Res 2009;29:52–62.
   Google Scholar
• Hilt ML, Lipschultz, JH. Elderly Americans and the internet: E-mail, TV news, information and entertainment websites. Educ Gerontol 2004;30:57–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selwyn N, Gorard S, Furlong J, Madden L. Older adults' use of information and communication technology in everyday life. Ageing Soc 2003;23:561–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charness N, Holley P. The new media and older adults: Usable and useful? Am Behav Sci 2004;48:416–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tacken M, Marcellini F, Mollenkopf H, Ruoppila I, Széman, Z. Use and acceptance of new technology by older people. Findings of the international MOBILATE survey: “Enhancing mobility in later life”. Gerontechnology 2005;3:126–37.
   Google Scholar
• Czaja SJ, Sharit J, Ownby R, Roth DL. Examining age differences in performance of a complex information search and retrieval task. Psychol Aging 2001;16:564–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg L, Kottorp A, Winblad B, Nygård L. Perceived difficulty in everyday technology use among older adults with or without cognitive deficits. Scand J Occup Ther Epub 2009;16 January.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher AG. Functional measures, part 2: Selecting the right test, minimizing the limitations. Am J Occup Ther 1992;46:278–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman Deane J, Keith S, Whitney G. HCI and the older population. Universal Access in the Information Society 2009;8:1–3.
   Google Scholar
• Kielhofner G. A Model of human occupation: Theory and application. 4th ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Gilgun JF. Qualitative methods and the development of clinical assessment tools. Qual Health Res 2004;14:1008–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morse JM, Hutchinson SA, Penrod J. From theory to practice: The development of assessment guides from qualitatively derived theory. Qual Health Res 2003;8:329–40.
   Google Scholar
• Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Folstein MF, Folstein SE McHugh PR. “Mini Mental State Examination”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahlander K. Cognitive functioning in aging and dementia: The role of psychiatric and somatic factors. Dissertation, Section of Geriatric Epidemiology, NEUROTEC, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, Katzman R, Price D, Stadlan EM. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: Report of NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Task Force on Alzheimer's disease. Neurology 1984;34:939–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV. 4th ed. Washington: APA; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen RC. Mild cognitive impairment as a diagnostic entity. J Intern Med 2004;256:183–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nygård L. (research version of manual). Användarmanual för META. Svårigheter i teknologianvändning Skills in using technology: an assessment. Stockholm: Division of Occupational Therapy, Karolinska Institutet; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association and National Council of Measurement in Education. The standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. FACETS: Many-faceted Rasch measurement computer program. Version 3.61. Chicago: MESA; 1987–2006.
   Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Linacre JM. Rasch model derived from objectivity. Rasch Measurement Transactions 1987;1:1:5–6.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. In: Smith EV, Smith RM, editors. Introduction to Rasch measurement. Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press, 2004, p. 258–278.
   Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Linacre JM. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions 1994;8:370.
   Google Scholar
• Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Eliasson AC. Development of the assisting hand assessment: A Rasch-built measure intended for children with unilateral upper limb impairment. Scand J Occup Ther 2003;10:16–26.
   Google Scholar
• Patomella AH, Caneman G, Kottorp A, Tham K. Identifying scale and person response validity of a new assessment of driving ability. Scand J Occup Ther 2004;11:70–7.
   Google Scholar
• Engelhard G. Examining rater errors in the assessment or written composition with a many-faceted Rasch model. J Educational Measurement 1994;31:93–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kottorp A, Bernspång B, Fisher AG. Validity of a performance assessment of activities of daily living for people with developmental disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res 2003;47:597–605.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher WP. Reliability statistics. Rasch Measurement Transactions 1992;6:238.
   Google Scholar
• Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Wright BD. Diagnosing misfit. Rasch Measurement Transactions 1991;5:156.
   Google Scholar
• Nygård L. The meaning of everyday technology as experienced by people with dementia who live alone. Dementia 2008;7:481–502.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Reliability and separation nomograms. Rasch Measurement Transactions 1995;9:421.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher AG. Assessment of Motor and Process Skills, Vol 1: Development, standardization, and administration manual. 6th ed. Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Östlund B. Design paradigms and misunderstood technology: The case of older users. In: Jaeger B, editor. Young technologies in old hands: An international view on senior citizens' utilization of ICT. Copenhagen: DJÖF Publishing; 2005. p. 25–39.
   Google Scholar