Mobility-related participation and user satisfaction: Construct validity in the context of powered wheelchair use

References

• Helin S, Nilsson J, Widmark O. Statistik från hjälpmedelscentraler 2002. (Statistics from Assistive technology Centres). Vällingby, Sweden: The Swedish Handicap Institute; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt Å, Stapelfeldt C. Forbrug af mobilitetshjælpemidler 2002–2006 – på basis af data fra Zealand Care. (Consumption of mobility devices 2002–2006) – based on Zealand Care data, Århus, Denmark: Danish Centre for Assistive Technology; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Jette AM, Keysor J, Coster W, Ni P, Haley S. Beyond function: Predicting participation in a rehabilitation cohort. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:2087–2094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UN Plenary of the General Assembly. UN Convention of the rights of persons with disabilities. Geneva: UN; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Samuelsson K, Wressle E. User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices: an important element in the rehabilitation process. Disabil Rehabil 2008;30:551–558.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessels R. Ask the user. User perspective in the assessment of assistive technology [thesis]. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Universitaire pers Maastricht; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt Å, Iwarsson S, Ståhl A. Older people's use of powered wheelchairs for activity and participation. J Rehabil Med 2004;36:70–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt Å. Outcomes of rollator and powered wheelchair interventions. User satisfaction and participation. [thesis]. Lund, Sweden: Faculty of Medicine, Division of Occupational Therapy; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt Å. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and content validation of the QUEST. Technol Disabil 2006;17:205–216.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Quebec user evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology QUEST version 2.0. An outcome measure for assistive technology devices. Webster (NY): The Institute for Matching Person & Technology; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technol Disabil 2002;14:101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Avlund K, Era P, Davidsen M, Gause-Nilsson I. Item bias in self-reported functional ability among 75-year-old men and women in three Nordic localities. Scand J Soc Med 1996;24:206–217.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales – a practical guide to their development and use. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum PR. Criterion-related construct validity. Psychometrika 1989;54:625–633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasch G. An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. Br J Math Stat Psychol 1966;19:49–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;6:197–233.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen EB. Sufficient statistics and latent trait models. Psychometrika 1977;42:69–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher GH, Molenaar IW, editors. Rasch models. Foundations, recent developments and applications. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1985.
   Google Scholar
• Bartholomew DJ. The statistical approach to social measurement. San Diego, US: Academic Press; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Davies A, de Souza LH, Frank AO. Changes in the quality of life in severely disabled people following provision of powered indoor/outdoor chairs. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:286–290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petterson I, Törnquist K, Ahlström G. The effect of an outdoor powered wheelchair on activity and participation in users with stroke. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2006;1:235–246.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jedeloo S, de Witte L, Linssen B, Schrijvers AJP. Client satisfaction with service delivery of assistive technology for outdoor mobility. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:550–557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wressle E, Samuelsson K. User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices. Scand J Occup Ther 2004;11:143–150.
   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;25:267–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec User Evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Montreal, Canada: Université de Montréal and Centre de recherche de l'Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Kreiner S, Christensen KB. Analysis of local dependence and multidimensionality in graphical loglinear Rasch models. Commun Stat 2004;33:1239–1276.
   Google Scholar
• Kreiner S, Christensen KB. Graphical Rasch models. In: Mesbah M, Cole BF, Lee MT, editors. Statistical methods for quality of life studies. Design, measurement and analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002. pp 187–203.
   Google Scholar
• Kirkwood BR, Sterne JAC. Medical statistics. 2nd ed. Malden (Massachusetts): Blackwell Science; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Kreiner S. Digram 1.16.2. Copenhagen, Author. Computer Program. Internet. 2004. Electronic Citation. http://staff.pubhealth.ku.dk/~skm/skm/. Last accessed 4 June 2009.
   Google Scholar
• SPSS Inc. SPSS 16.0. Chicago, US: SPSS Inc.; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Jette AM, Haley SM, Kooyoomijan JT. Are the ICF activity and participation dimensions distinct? J Rehabil Med 2003;35:145–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yorkston KM, Kuehn CM, Johnson KL, Ehde DM, Jensen MP, Amtmann D. Measuring participation in people living with multiple sclerosis: a comparison of self-reported frequency, importance and self-efficacy. Disabil Rehabil 2008;30:88–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haak M, Fänge A, Horstmann V, Iwarsson S. Two dimensions of participation in very old age and their relations to home and neighborhood environments. Am J Occup Ther 2008;62:77–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown M, Dijkers MPJM, Gordon WA, Ashman T, Charatz H, Cheng Z. Participation objective, participation subjective. A measure of participation combining outsider and insider perspectives. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2004;19:459–481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt Å, Löfqvist C, Jónsdottir I, Sund T, Salminen A, Werngren-Elgström M, Iwarsson S. Towards an instrument targeting mobility-related participation: Nordic cross-national reliability. J Rehabil Med 2008;40:766–772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt Å, Löfqvist C, Jónsdottir I, Salminen A-L, Sund T, Iwarsson S. NOMO 1.0 Manual. Århus, Danmark: Hjælpemiddelinstituttet. Internet. 2009. Electronic Citation. http://www.hmi.dk/page534.aspx?q=nomo. Last accessed 4 June 2009.
   Google Scholar
• McHorney CA. Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Annu Rev Public Health 1999;20:309–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar