People with disabilities as product innovators: a pilot study

References

• Emiliani PL. Assistive technology (AT) versus mainstream technology (MST): the research perspective. Technol. Disabil. 2006;18:19.
   Google Scholar
• Imrie R, Luck R. Designing inclusive environments: rehabilitating the body and the relevance of universal design. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:1315–1319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• 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
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol. 1993;5:36–45.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Federici S, Meloni F, Borsci S. The abandonment of assistive technology in Italy: a survey of National Health Service users. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2016;4:9–17.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. From people-centered to person-centered services, and back again. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9:1–2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ravneberg B. Usability and abandonment of assistive technology. J Assist Technol. 2012;6:259–269.
   Google Scholar
• Urban GL, von Hippel E. Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Manage Sci. 1988;34:569–582.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luthje C, Herstatt C. The lead user method: an outline of empirical findings and issues for future research. R&D Management. 2004;34:553–568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuhmacher MC, Kuester S. Identification of lead user characteristics driving the quality of service innovation ideas. Creat Innov Manag. 2012;21:427–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison P, Roberts J, von Hippel E. Determinants of innovation user in innovation a local and sharing market. Manage Sci. 2000;46:1513–1527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belz FM, Baumbach W. Netnography as a method of lead user identification. Creat Innov Manag. 2010;19:304–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duverger P. Variety is the spice of innovation: mediating factors in the service idea generation process. Creat Innov Manag. 2012;21:106–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franke N, Shah S. How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Res Policy. 2003;32:157–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riggs W, von Hippel E. Incentives to innovate and the sources of innovation: the case of scientific instruments. Res Policy. 1994;23:459–469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olson EL, Bakke G. Implementing the lead user method in a high technology firm: a longitudinal study of intentions versus actions. J Prod Innov Manag. 2001;18:388–395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faullant R, Schwarz EJ, Krajger I, et al. Towards a comprehensive understanding of lead userness: the search for individual creativity. Creat Innov Manag. 2012;21:76–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lüthje C. Characteristics of innovating users in a consumer goods field: an empirical study of sport-related product consumers. Technovation. 2004;24:683–695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Hippel E. Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Manage Sci. 1986;32:791–805.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hienerth C, Lettl C. Innovations to become standard equipment in the industry: community pull effects. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2011;28:175–195.
   Google Scholar
• Franke N, Von Hippel E, Schreier M. Finding commercially attractive user innovations: a test of lead-user theory. J Prod Innov Manag. 2006;23:301–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lüthje C, Herstatt C, Von Hippel E. User-innovators and ‘local’ information: the case of mountain biking. Res Policy. 2005;34:951–965.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira P, von Hippel E. Users as service innovators: the case of banking services. Res Policy. 2011;40:806–818.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnusson PR. Exploring the contributions of involving ordinary users in ideation of technology-based services. J Prod Innov Manag. 2009;26:578–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Hippel E, Ogawa S, Jong JP. De. The age of the consumer-innovator. MIT Sloan Manag Rev. 2011;53:27–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Jong JPJ, Von Hippel E, Gault F, et al. Market failure in the diffusion of consumer-developed innovations: patterns in Finland. Res Policy. 2015;44:1856–1865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatterji AK, Fabrizio KR, Mitchell W, et al. Physician-industry cooperation in the medical device industry. Health Aff. 2008;27:1532–1543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeMonaco HJ, Ali A, von Hippel E. The major role of clinicians in the discovery of off-label drug therapies. Pharmacotherapy. 2006;26:323–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira P, Zejnilovic L, Canhão H, et al. Innovation by patients with rare diseases and chronic needs. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10:41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lange ML, Smith R. The future of electronic aids to daily living. Am J Occup Ther. 2002;56:107–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Story MF. Maximizing usability: the principles of universal design. Assist Technol. 1998;10:4–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kratzer J, Lettl C, Franke N, et al. The social network position of lead users. J Prod Innov Manag. 2015;33:1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bengtsson L, Ryzhkova N. Managing a strategic source of innovation: online users. Int J Inf Manage. 2013;33:655–662.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilgram V, Brem A, Voigt K. User-centric innovations in new product development — systematic identification of lead users harnessing interactive and collaborative online-tools. Int J Innov Manag 2008;12:419–458.
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes SD, Bowie DA, Hergenrather KC. Collecting behavioural data using the world wide web: considerations for researchers. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57:68–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell S, Ciemnecki A, CyBulski K, et al. Removing barriers to survey participation for persons with disabilities. Math Policy Res Inc. Washington, DC. 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Sheehan KB. E-mail survey response rates: a review. J Comput Commun. 2001;6.
   Google Scholar
• Stock RM, von Hippel E, Gillert NL. Impacts of personality traits on consumer innovation success. Res Policy. 2016;45:757–769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maneesriwongul W, Dixon JK. Instrument translation process: a methods review. J Adv Nurs. 2004;48:175–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnusson PR, Wästlund E, Netz J. Exploring users appropriateness as a proxy for experts when screening new product/service ideas. J Prod Innov Manag. 2014;33:4–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweisfurth TG. Comparing internal and external lead users as sources of innovation. Res Policy. 2016;46:238–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parasuraman A, Colby CL. Techno-ready marketing: how and why your customers adopt technology. The Free Press. 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Parasuraman A. Technology Readiness Index (Tri): a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. J Serv Res. 2000;2:307–320.
   Google Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin JK, Martin LG, Stumbo NJ, et al. The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6:225–242.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rogelberg SG, Stanton JM. Introduction: understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organ Res Methods. 2007;10:195–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria; 2016. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, et al. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Akaike H. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika. 1987;52:317–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Füller J, Matzler K, Hutter K, et al. Consumers creative talent: which characteristics qualify consumers for open innovation projects? An exploration of asymmetrical effects. Creat Innov Manag. 2012;21:247–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schreier M, Oberhauser S, Prügl R. Lead users and the adoption and diffusion of new products: Insights from two extreme sports communities. Mark Lett. 2007;18:15–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lettl C, Herstatt C, Gemuenden HG. Users contributions to radical innovation: evidence from four cases in the field of medical equipment technology. R&D Management. 2006;36:251–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kornish LJ, Ulrich KT. The importance of the raw idea in innovation: testing the Sow’s ear hypothesis. J Mark Res. 2014;51:14–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. World report on disability [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2016 Jun 5]. p. 1–350. Available from: http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf.
   Google Scholar