Inter-rater and test-retest reliability of the Danish version of the everyday technology use questionnaire

References

• Emiliani PL. Assistive Technology (AT) versus Mainstream Technology (MST): the research perspective. Technol Disabil. 2006;18:19.
   Google Scholar
• Malinowsky C, Kottorp A, Patomella A-H, et al. Changes in the technological landscape over time: Relevance and difficulty levels of everyday technologies as perceived by older adults with and without cognitive impairment. TAD. 2015;27:91–101.
   Google Scholar
• Ackerman SE, Bednarczyk KR, Roncolato K, et al. The use of computer technology with older adult clients: a pilot study of occupational therapists. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr. 2001;20:49–57.
   Google Scholar
• Fallahpour M, Kottorp A, Nygard L, 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
• Lindén A, Lexell J, Lund ML. Perceived difficulties using everyday technology after acquired brain injury: influence on activity and participation. Scand J Occup Ther. 2010;17:267–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engström A-LL, Lexell J, Lund ML. Difficulties in using everyday technology after acquired brain injury: a qualitative analysis. Scand J Occup Ther. 2010;17:233–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig J, Patterson V. Introduction to the practice of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11:3–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Udsen FW, Lilholt PH, Hejlesen O, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014;15:178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nield M, Hoo GWS. Real-time telehealth for COPD Self-Management Using Skype™. J Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2012;9:611–619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg L, Kottorp A, Winblad B, et al. Perceived difficulty in everyday technology use among older adults with or without cognitive deficits. Scand J Occup Ther. 2009;16:216–226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg L, Kottorp A, Nygard L. Readiness for technology use with people with dementia: the perspectives of significant others. J Appl Gerontol. 2012;31:510–530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malinowsky C, Kottorp A, Tanemura R, et al. Validation of the everyday technology use questionnaire in a Japanese context. Hong Kong J Occup 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. DOI:10.1080/11038128.2017.1311940
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg L, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Everyday technology use questionnaire: psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of competence in technology use. OTJR. 2009;29:52–62.
   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;21:210–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hällgren M, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Technology and everyday functioning in people with intellectual disabilities: a Rasch analysis of the Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire (ETUQ). J Intellect Disabil Res. 2011;55:610–620.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson Lund M, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Perceived difficulty in the use of everyday technology: relationships with everyday functioning in people with acquired brain injury with a special focus on returning to work. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:1618–1625.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch Model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 2nd ed. Florence: Taylor and Francis; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Hagell P, Hedin PJ, Meads DM, et al. Effects of method of translation of patient-reported health outcome questionnaires: a randomized study of the translation of the rheumatoid arthritis quality of life (RAQoL) instrument for Sweden. Value Health. 2010;13:425–430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kottorp A, Fisher AG, Griswold LA. Validity of a new tool for assessing the discrepancy between observed and selfreported quality of activities of daily living (ADL) task performance. Am J Occup Ther. 2015;69:6911500100p1.
   Google Scholar
• Nygård L. Manual to the questionnaire about Everyday technology in home and society: everyday technology use questionnaire (ETUQ II) & short ETUQ (S-ETUQ). Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Occupational Therapy, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• DePoy E, Gitlin LN. Introduction to research: understanding and applying multiple strategies. 4th ed. St Louis: Elsevier; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• AVDACIA. Anders Avdic. [Internet]. 2015 [Updated 2015 Aug 14; cited 2015 Sep 20] Manual Svenssons metod [about 8 screens]. Available from: http://avdic.se/svenssonsmetodsvenska.html
   Google Scholar
• Svensson E. Different ranking approaches defining association and agreement measures of paired ordinal data. Statist Med. 2012;31:3104–3117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norrefalk J-R, Svensson E. The functional barometer-a self-report questionnaire in accordance with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for pain related problems; validity and patient-observer comparisons. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson E. Guidelines to statistical evaluation of data from rating scales and questionnaires. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33:47–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watkins MW, Pacheco M. Interobserver agreement in behavioral research: importance and calculation. J Behav Educ. 2000;10:205–212.
   Google Scholar
• Svensson E. Statistisk metod för parade ordinaldata. Lakartidningen. 2007;104:596–601.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• AVDACIA. Sweden. Avdic A. [Internet]. 2015 [Updated 2015 Aug 14; cited 2015 Sep 20] Guidelines to calculation by the free software and interpretation of the measures of disagreement applied to reliability studies. [about 3 screens]. Available from: http://avdic.se/svenssonsmetodsvenska.html
   Google Scholar
• Svensson E. Val och konsekvens: mätnivån avgör den statistiska verktygslådan. Läkartidningen. 2005;17:1331–1337.
   Google Scholar
• Allvin R, Svensson E, Rawal N, et al. The postoperative recovery profile (PRP): a multidimensional questionnaire for evaluation of recovery profiles. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17:236–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson I, Fisher AG. Evaluating leisure activities in the oldest old. Scand J Occup Ther. 2006;13:31–37.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Patomella AH, Tham K, Kottorp A. P-drive: assessment of driving performance after stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2006;38:273–279.
   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
• Kimberlin CL, Winterstein AG. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008;65:2276–2284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB. The COSMIN checklist (COnsus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments). [Internet]. Amsterdam 2017 [cited 2017 April 1st]. Available from: http://www.cosmin.nl/the_cosmin_checklist.html
   Google Scholar
• Slaug B, Schilling O, Helle T, et al. Unfolding the phenomenon of interrater agreement: a multicomponent approach for in-depth examination was proposed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:1016–1025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mårtensson L, Archenholtz B, Dahlin-Ivanoff S. The conceptions of pain and rehabilitation questionnaire (CPRQ): development and test of face validity and stability over time. Scand J Occup Ther. 2007;14:230–239.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gisev N, Bell JS, Chen TF. Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: key concepts, approaches, and applications. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013;9:330–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nygård L, Rosenberg L, Kottorp A. Users manual: everyday technology use questionnaire (ETUQ) everyday technology in activities at home and in society. Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Occupational Therapy, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Iwarsson S, Slaug B. Housing enabler: en metode til vurdering/kortlaegning og analyse af tilgaengelighedsproblemer i boliger. Malmö. Exakta; 2010.
   Google Scholar