Gender and diagnostic impact on everyday technology use: a differential item functioning (DIF) analysis of the Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire (ETUQ)

References

• Hammel J, Magasi S, Heinemann A, et al. Environmental barriers and supports to everyday participation: a qualitative insider perspective from people with disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96:578–588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malinowsky C, Kottorp A, Nygård L. Everyday technologies’ levels of challenge when used older adults with and without cognitive impairment – comparison of self-perceived versus observed difficulty estimates. Technol Disabil. 2013;25:167–176.
   Google Scholar
• Munoz-Neira C, Lopez OL, Riveros R, et al. The technology: activities of daily living questionnaire: a version with a technology-related subscale. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2012;33:361–371.
   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
• Malinowsky C, Larsson Lund M. The match between everyday technology in public space and the ability of working-aged people with ABI to use it. Br J Occup Ther. 2016;79:26–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen J. Usability engineering. London: Academic press; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Rauschenberger M, Schrepp M, Pérez Cota M, et al. Efficient measurement of the user experience of interactive products. Int J Interact Multimed Artif Intell. 2013;2:39–45.
   Google Scholar
• Lindqvist E, Larsson T, Borell L. Experienced usability of assistive technology for cognitive support with respect to user goals. NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;36:135–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitzner T, Boron JB, Bailey Fausset C, et al. Older adults talk technology: technology usage and attitudes. Comput Human Behav. 2010;26:1710–1721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nägle S, Schmidt L. Computer acceptance of older adults. Work. 2012;41:3541–3548.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci. 2008;39:273–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malinowsky C, Almkvist O, Kottorp A, et al. Ability to manage everyday technology: a comparison of persons with dementia or mild cognitive impairment and older adults without cognitive impairment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5:462–469.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fallahpour M, Nygård L, Kottorp A, et al. Perceived difficulty in use of everyday technology in persons with acquired brain injury of different severity: a comparison with controls. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46:635–641.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nygård L, Pantzar M, Uppgard B, et al. Detection of activity limitations in older adults with MCI or Alzheimer’s disease through evaluation of perceived difficulty in use of everyday technology: a replication study. Aging Ment Health. 2012;16:361–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hällgren M, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Everyday technology use among people with mental retardation – relevance, perceived difficulty, and influencing factors. Scand J Occup Ther. 2014;21:210–221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malinowsky C, Patomella A-H, Rosenberg L, et al. Changes in the technological landscape over time: everyday technologies’ relevance and difficulty levels as perceived by older adults with and without cognitive impairment. Technol Disabil. 2015;27:91–101.
   Google Scholar
• Patomella A-H, Kottorp A, Malinowsky C, et al. Factors that impact the level of difficulty of everyday technology in a sample of older adults. Technol Disabil. 2011;23:243–250.
   Google Scholar
• Patomella A-H, Kottorp A, Nygård L. Design and management features of everyday technology that challenge older adults. Br J Occup Ther. 2013;76:390–397.
   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. OTJR. 2009;29:52–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartlett R, Gjernes T, Lotherington A-T. Gender, citizenship and dementia care: a scoping review of studies to inform policy and future research. Health Soc Care Commun. 2017 [July 24]. DOI:10.1111/hsc.12340
   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
• Malinowsky C, Almkvist O, Nygård L, et al. Individual variability and environmental characteristics influence older adults’ abilities to manage everyday technology. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24:484–495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kielhofner G. A model of human occupation: theory and application. 4th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008
   Google Scholar
• Nygård L. Manual to the questionnaire about everyday technology in home and society: Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire (ETUQ). Stockholm: Karolinska Institutet, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Occupational Therapy; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Hällgren M, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Technology and everyday functioning in people with intellectual disabilities: a Rasch analysis of the ET Use Questionnaire (ETUQ). J Intellect Disabil Res. 2011;55:610–620.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM [Internet]. Winsteps – Rasch Model computer program (version 3.91.0). Chicago. 2016. Available from: www.winsteps.com (Retrieved 2015 Sep 22).
   Google Scholar
• Gantschnig BE, Page J, Fisher AG. Cross-regional validity of the assessment of motor and process skills for use in middle Europe. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44:151–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kottorp A, Bernspång B, Fisher AG. Activities in daily living in persons with intellectual disability: strenghts and limitations. Aust Occ Ther J. 2003;50:195–204.
   Google Scholar
• Kassberg A-C, Malinowsky C, Jacobsson L, et al. Ability to manage everyday technology after acquired brain injury. Brain Inj. 2013;27:1583–1588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Follette Story M. Principles of universal design. In: Preiser WFE, Smith KH, editors. Universal design handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Iwarsson S, Ståhl A. Accessibility, usability and universal design–positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:57–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassberg AC, Prellwitz M, Malinowsky C, et al. Interventions aimed at improving the ability to use everyday technology in work after brain injury. Scand J Occup Ther. 2016;23:147–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fallahpour M, Kottorp A, Nygård L, et al. Participation after acquired brain injury: associations with everyday technology and activities in daily life. Scand J Occup Ther. 2015;22:366–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryd C, Malinowsky C, Öhman A, et al. Older adults experiences of daily life occupations as everyday technology changes. 2018 (accepted for publication). Br J Occup Ther.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg L, Nygård L. Learning and knowing technology as lived experience in people with Alzheimer’s disease: a phenomenological study. Aging Ment Health. 2016 [Sep 3]; [1–8]. DOI:10.1080/13607863.2016.1222347
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourne RRA, Jonas J, Flaxman SR, et al. Prevalence and causes of vision loss in high-income countries and in Eastern and Central Europe: 1990–2010. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98:629–638.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agrawal Y, Platz E, Niparko JK. Prevalence of hearing loss and differences by demographic characteristics among US adults. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1522–1530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackmann R, Winkler O. The concept of technology generations revisited: new insights from sociology. Gerontechnology. 2012;11:106–107.
   Google Scholar
• Malinowsky C, Kottorp A, Tanemura R, et al. Validation of the Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire in a Japanese context. Hong Kong J Occupat Ther. 2015;26:1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patomella A-H, Kottorp A, Ferreira M, et al. Everyday technology use among older adults in Sweden and Portugal. Scand J Occup Ther. 2017 [April 7]; [1–10]. DOI:10.1080/11038128.2017.1311940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedman A, Kottorp A, Nygård L. Patterns of everyday technology use and activity involvement in mild cognitive impairment: a five-year follow-up study. Aging Ment Health. 2017 [March 22]; [1–8]. DOI:10.1080/13607863.2017.1297361
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedman A, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Everyday technology use relates to activity involvement in cognitive decline. Am J Occup Ther. 2017;71:7105190040p1–7105190040p8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malinowsky C, Nygård L, Tanemura R, et al. Everyday technology use among older adults in Sweden and Japan: a comparative study. Scand J Occup Ther. 2017 [April 27); [1–11]. DOI:10.1080/11038128.2017.1321684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar