Technology acceptance and perceptions of robotic assistive devices by older adults – implications for exoskeleton design

References

• Backonja U, Hall AK, Painter I, et al. Comfort and attitudes towards robots among young, middle-aged, and older adults: a cross-sectional study. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2018;50(6):623–633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smarr C-A, Mitzner TL, Beer JM, et al. Domestic robots for older adults: attitudes, preferences, and potential. Int J Soc Robot. 2014;6(2):229–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Graaf MM, Ben Allouch S, van Dijk JA. Why would I use this in my home? A model of domestic social robot acceptance. Human–Computer Interaction. 2019;34(2):115–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 13482 – Robots and robotic devices – safety requirements for personal care robots. Geneva: ISO; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• McGinn C, Cullinan MF, Culleton M, et al. A human-oriented framework for developing assistive service robots. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(3):293–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson H, MacDonald B, Broadbent E. The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: a review. Int J of Soc Robotics. 2014;6(4):575–591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newell AF. Design and the digital divide insights from 40 years in computer support for older and disabled people (Synthesis lectures on assistive, rehabilitative, and health-preserving technologies; no. 1). San Rafael (CA): Morgan & Claypool; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Lee M, Dey A. Sensor-based observations of daily living for aging in place. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 2015;19(1):27–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baltes PB. Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: on the dynamics between growth and decline. Dev Psychol. 1987;23(5):611–626.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Technology adoption, acceptance, satisfaction and benefit: integrating various assistive technology outcomes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(1):1–2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luijkx K, Peek S, Wouters E, et al. Grandma, you should do it—it’s cool”: older adults and the role of family members in their acceptance of technology. IJERPH. 2015;12(12):15470–15485.
   Google Scholar
• Graafmans JA, Fozard JL, Rietsema J, et al. Gerontechnology: matching the technological environment to the needs and capacities of the elderly. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Dreyfuss H. Designing for people. 2012 ed. New York: Allworth; 1955.
   Google Scholar
• V. J P. Design for the real world: human ecology and social change. 2nd ed completely revised. London: Thames and Hudson; 1985.
   Google Scholar
• Fisk AD, Rogers WA, Charness N, et al. Designing for older adults: principles and creative human factors approaches. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Farage MA, Miller KW, Ajayi F, et al. Design principles to accommodate older adults. Glob J Health Sci. 2012;4(2):2–25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Norman DA. The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• van Kuijk J, Kanis H, Christiaans H, et al. Barriers to and enablers of usability in electronic consumer product development: a multiple case study. Human–Computer Interact. 2017;32(1):1–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van De Velde D, Devisch I, De Vriendt P. The client-centred approach as experienced by male neurological rehabilitation clients in occupational therapy. A qualitative study based on a grounded theory tradition. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(16):1567–1577.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen SM, Mortensen RF, Kristensen HK, et al. Older adults' perspectives on the process of becoming users of assistive technology: a qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(2):182–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young AJ, Ferris DP. State of the art and future directions for lower limb robotic exoskeletons. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017;25(2):171–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolff J, Parker C, Borisoff J, et al. A survey of stakeholder perspectives on exoskeleton technology. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11(1):169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louie D, Eng J, Lam T. Gait speed using powered robotic exoskeletons after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and correlational study. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2015;12(1):1–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• XoSoft. XoSoft – Soft modular biomimetic exoskeleton to assist people with mobility impairments. Accelopment. Available from: https://www.xosoft.eu.
   Google Scholar
• Davis F. A technology acceptance model for testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing; 1985.
   Google Scholar
• Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 1989;13(3):319–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 2003;27(3):425–478.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, et al. Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model. Int J Soc Robotics. 2010;2(4):361–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shore L, Power V, de Eyto A, et al. Technology acceptance and user-centred design of assistive exoskeletons for older adults: a commentary. Robotics. 2018;7(1):3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones M, Robinson S, Pearson J, et al. Beyond “yesterday’s tomorrow”: future-focused mobile interaction design by and for emergent users. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 2017;21(1):157–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frennert S, Östlund B. Review: seven matters of concern of social robots and older people. Int J Soc Robotics. 2014;6(2):299–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Age UK. Technology and older people; evidence review [Online]. Age UK; 2009. [accessed 2018 Nov 18]. Available from: https://www.ageuk.org.uk/documents/en-gb/for-professionals/computers-and-technology/evidence_review_technology.pdf?dtrk=true
   Google Scholar
• Salovaara A, Tamminen S. Acceptance or appropriation? A design-oriented critique of technology acceptance models. In: Saariluoma P, Isomäki H, editors. Future interaction design II. London, UK.: Springer; 2009. pp. 157–173.
   Google Scholar
• Chamberlain A, Crabtree A, Rodden T, et al. Research in the wild: understanding'in the wild'approaches to design and development. Designing Interactive Systems Conference; 2012. ACM. pp. 795–796.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas G, James D. Reinventing grounded theory: some questions about theory, ground and discovery. Brit Educ Res J. 2006;32(6):767–795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birks M, Mills J. Grounded theory: a practical guide. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed.. London: Sage; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Maher C, Hadfield M, Hutchings M, et al. Ensuring rigor in qualitative data analysis:a design research approach to coding combining NVivo with traditional material methods. Int J Qual Methods. 2018;17:1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Saillard E. K. Systematic versus interpretive analysis with two CAQDAS packages: NVivo and MAXQDA. Forum Qual Social Res. 2011;12(1). Art. 34.
   Google Scholar
• QSRInternational. What is Nvivo. Available from: https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/what-is-nvivo.
   Google Scholar
• Higginbottom GMA. Sampling issues in qualitative research (sampling methods). Nurse Res. 2004;12(1):7–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Luborsky MR, Rubinstein RL. Sampling in qualitative research: rationale, issues, and methods. Res Aging. 1995;17(1):89–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oppenheim AN. Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. New edition. London: Continuum; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Cordell CB, Borson S, Boustani M, et al. Alzheimer's Association recommendations for operationalizing the detection of cognitive impairment during the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit in a primary care setting. Alzheimers Dement. 2013;9(2):141–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, et al. Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA. 1963;185(12):914–919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ejupi A, Gschwind YJ, Valenzuela T, et al. A kinect and inertial sensor-based system for the self-assessment of fall risk: a home-based study in older people. Human–Computer Interact. 2016;31(3–4):261–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmond D, Layton N, Bentley J, et al. Assistive technology and people: a position paper from the first global research, innovation and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):437–444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzman J, Pawliczko A, Beales S, et al. Ageing in the twentyfirst century: a celebration and a challenge. New York: United Nations Population Fund; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Norman DA. The design of future things. New York: Basic Books; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Cook AM. Assistive technologies: principles and practice. 4th ed. St. Louis (MO): Elsevier/Mosby; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Assistive technology assessment handbook (Rehabilitation science in practice series). Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Steen M. G D l. The fragility of human-centred design: fragility of human-centered design. Amsterdam: IOS Pess; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Shore L, Power V, Hartigan B, et al. Exoscore: a design tool to evaluate factors associated with technology acceptance of soft lower limb exosuits by older adults. Hum Factors. 2019;62(3):391–410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Nurs Res. 1970;19(3):278.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Craddock G. Matching Person & Technology (MPT) assessment process. TAD. 2002;14(3):125–131.
   Google Scholar
• Neate T, Jones M, Evans M. Cross-device media: a review of second screening and multi-device television. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 2017;21(2):391–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Y-h, Damnée S, Kerhervé H, et al. Bridging the digital divide in older adults: a study from an initiative to inform older adults about new technologies. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;10:193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan LW, Power V, De Eyto A, et al. User centered design and usability of bionic devices. Cham (Switzerland): Springer International Publishing; 2017.
   Google Scholar