Initial constructs for patient-centered outcome measures to evaluate brain–computer interfaces

References

• Sellers EW, Vaughan TM, Wolpaw JR. A brain–computer interface for long-term independent home use. Amyotroph Lateral Scler 2010;11:449–55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blankertz B, Dornhege G, Krauledat M, et al. The Berlin brain–computer Interface presents the novel mental typewriter Hex-o-Spell. Proceedings of the 3rd International Brain–Computer Interface Workshop And Training Course; 2006 Sep 21–24. Graz, Austria: Verlag der Technischen Universität Graz; 2006:108–9
   Google Scholar
• Orhan U, Hild II KE, Erdogmus D, et al. RSVP keyboard: an EEG based typing interface. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, ICASSP 2012; 2012 Mar 25–30; Kyoto; 2012
   Google Scholar
• Huggins JE, Wolpaw JR. Papers from the Fifth International Brain–Computer Interface Meeting. J Neural Eng 2014;11:030301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolpaw JR, Wolpaw EW. Brain–computer interfaces: something new under the sun. In: Wolpaw JR, Wolpaw EW, eds. Brain–computer interfaces: principles and practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.; 2012:3–12
   Google Scholar
• Thompson DE, Quitadamo LR, Mainardi L, et al. Performance measurement for brain–computer or brain–machine interfaces: a tutorial. J Neural Eng 2014;11:035001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birbaumer N, Kübler A, Ghanayim N, et al. The thought translation device (TTD) for completely paralyzed patients. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 2000;8:190–3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Culp D, Ambrosi D, Berniger T, Mitchell J. Augmentative communication aid use – a follow-up study. Augment Altern Commun 1986;2:19–24
   Google Scholar
• Scherer M. Matching Person & Technology (MPT) Model manual and accompanying assessments. 3rd ed. Webster, NY: Institute for Matching Person & Technology, Inc.; 1998
   Google Scholar
• Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care 2007;45:S3–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patient-centered outcomes research (working definition March 5th, 2012) [Internet]; c2013. Available from: http://www.pcori.org/research-we-support/pcor/ [last accessed 31 Dec 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: Part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health 2011;14:967–77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: Part 2—assessing respondent understanding. Value Health 2011;14:978–88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures—use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Fuhrer M, Jutai J, Scherer M, DeRuyter F. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:1243–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millán JdR, Gao S, Müller-Putz GR, et al., eds. Proceedings of the Fifth International Brain–Computer Interface Meeting: Defining the Future. Fifth International Brain–Computer Interface Meeting; 2013 Jun 3–7; Pacific Grove, CA. Available from: http://castor.tugraz.at/doku/BCIMeeting2013/BCIMeeting2013_all.pdf [last accessed 15 Jul 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Jutai JW, Fuhrer MJ, Demers L, et al. Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:294–302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Fuhrer MJ, Jutai J, et al. A conceptual framework of outcomes for caregivers of assistive technology users. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2009;88:645–55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsaesser L, Bauer SM. Provision of Assistive Technology Services Method (ATSM) according to evidence-based information and knowledge management. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2011;6:386–401
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Corradi F, Scherer M, Lo Presti A. Measuring the assistive technology match. In: Federici S, Scherer MJ, eds. Assistive technology assessment handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2012
   Google Scholar
• Lorenz R, Pascual J, Blankertz B, Vidaurre C. Towards a holistic assessment of the user experience with hybrid BCIs. J Neural Eng 2014;11:035007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001
   Google Scholar
• Whiteneck G. Conceptual models of disability: past, present, and future. In: Field MJ, Jette AM, Martin L, eds. Workshop on disability in America: a new look. Washington, DC: National Academics Press; 2005:50–66
   Google Scholar
• Patrick DL. Rethinking prevention for people with disabilities. Part I: a conceptual model for promoting health. Am J Health Promot 1997;11:257–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kübler A, Zickler C, Holz E, et al. Applying the user-centred design to evaluation of brain–computer interface controlled applications. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2013;58 . [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1515/bmt-2013-4438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates REA. Enhancing the performance of eye and head mice: a validated assessment method and an investigation into the performance of eye and head based assistive technology pointing devices [dissertation]. Leicester, UK: De Montfort University; 2006
   Google Scholar
• NASA Human Performance Research Group. NASA Task Load Index (TLX) v1.0: paper and pencil package. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center; 1988
   Google Scholar
• Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Human Mental Workload 1988;1:139–83
   Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J. The Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale. Ottowa, Ontario: University of Ottowa; 1996
   Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J. Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: the PIADS. Can J Rehabil 1996;9:159–68
   Google Scholar
• Whiteneck GG, Harrison-Felix CL, Mellick DC, et al. Quantifying environmental factors: a measure of physical, attitudinal, service, productivity, and policy barriers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004 8;85:1324–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray DB, Hollingsworth HH, Stark S, Morgan KA. A subjective measure of environmental facilitators and barriers to participation for people with mobility limitations. Disabil Rehabil 2008;30:434–57
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krahn GL, Horner-Johnson W, Hall TA, et al. Development and psychometric assessment of the Function-Neutral Health-Related Quality of Life Measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2014;93:56–74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fougeyrollas P, Noreau L, St-Michel G, Boschen K. Measure of the quality of the environment v2.0. Lac St-Charles, Quebec: INDCP; 1999
   Google Scholar
• Gray DB. Participation survey/general (PARTS/G). St. Louis, MO: Washington University School of Medicine; 2011
   Google Scholar
• Paul D, Frattali C, Holland A, et al. ASHA Quality of Communication Life scale (QCL). Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language Hearing Association; 2004
   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: Institute for Matching Person & Technology, Inc.; 2000
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol 1996;8:3–13
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gray DB. Survey of Participation and Receptivity in Communities (SPARC). St. Louis, MO: Washington University School of Medicine; 2011
   Google Scholar
• Chisolm TH, Abrams HB, McArdle R, et al. The WHO-DAS II: psychometric properties in the measurement of functional health status in adults with acquired hearing loss. Trends Amplif 2005;9:111–26
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hartelius L, Elmberg M, Holm R, et al. Living with dysarthria: evaluation of a self-report questionnaire. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2008;60:11–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin JP, Diehl VA, Norman KL. Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human–computer interface. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 1988:213–18; Washington, DC
   Google Scholar
• Baylor C, Yorkston K, Eadie T, et al. The Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB): item bank calibration and development of a disorder-generic short form. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2013;56:1190–1208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oken BS, Orhan U, Roark B, et al. Brain–computer interface with language model-electroencephalography fusion for locked-in syndrome. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2014;28:387–94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen DJ, Crabtree BF. Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations. Annals Fam Med 2008;6:331–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Doing qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1999
   Google Scholar
• Whittemore R, Chase SK, Mandle CL. Validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 2001;11:522–37
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med 1998;46:1569–85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med 1998;28:551–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz CE, Andresen EM, Nosek MA, Krahn GL. Response shift theory: important implications for measuring quality of life in people with disability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88:529–36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr C, Nixon A, Wild D. Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in qualitative inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2010;10:269–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tucker CA, Cieza A, Riley AW, et al. Concept analysis of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Qual Life Res 2014;23:1677–86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar