Toward guidelines for reporting assistive technology device outcomes

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to develop and pilot-test reporting guidelines for manuscripts describing studies of assistive technology device outcomes, with the hopes of improving the overall quality of research in this field.

Methods

The research is presented in two stages. In Stage 1, a literature review was completed to identify the essential components of a conceptual framework for reporting guidelines and to create a checklist. In Stage 2, two independent reviewers evaluated twenty articles using the checklist to identify any short-comings of the tool and produce an estimate of interrater reliability. Two items of the original checklist were revised after reconciling disagreements between the two raters.

Results

The Cohen’s Kappa value of the checklist was 0.887 (p < .000), reflecting excellent interrater agreement. The overall percent agreement was 94.6%.

Conclusions

Reporting guidelines for studies of assistive technology device outcomes appear to be reliable. Although the checklist may require periodic updating, it has potential for advancing outcomes research. Researchers are invited to share comments and criticisms to aid in the efforts of enhancing the quality of reporting in this field.

Implications for rehabilitation

• Reporting checklists and guidelines are effective tools for achieving a minimum standard of reporting quality in all areas of rehabilitation research.

• This study presents a preliminary reporting checklist for the field of assistive technology device outcomes that has potential for advancing outcomes research.

• Authors and journal editors are encouraged to adopt and adhere to reporting guidelines in order to enhance the clarity and completeness of prospective studies.

Keywords:

• Reporting guidelines
• assistive device
• outcome
• rehabilitation
• framework

Acknowledgements

We thank Amélie Gauthier-Beaupré for her assistance as one of the independent raters.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.