A systematic review of the psychometric properties of Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST)

References

• Layton N, Murphy C, Bell D. From individual innovation to global impact: the global cooperation on assistive technology (GATE) innovation snapshot as a method for sharing and scaling. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(5):486–491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang W, Eide AH, Pryor W, et al. Measuring Self-Reported access to assistive technology using the WHO rapid assistive technology assessment (rATA) questionnaire: protocol for a Multi-Country study. IJERPH. 2021;18(24):13336. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/24/13336
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick R, Hopkins A. Problems in the conceptual framework of patient satisfaction research: an empirical exploration. Sociol Health Illn. 1983;5(3):297–311.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hsieh M-O, Kagle JD. Understanding patient satisfaction and dissatisfaction with health care. Health Soc Work. 1991;16(4):281–290. A https://academic.oup.com/hsw/article/636057/Understanding
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bond S, Thomas LH. Measuring patients’ satisfaction with nursing care. J Adv Nurs. 1992;17(1):52–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress gelderblom GJ, de witte LP, editors. Technol. TAD. 2002;14(3):101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Baars EC, Schrier E, Dijkstra PU, et al. Prosthesis satisfaction in lower limb amputees: a systematic review of associated factors and questionnaires. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(39):e12296. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30278503
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Demers L, et al. Development of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Assist Technol. 1996;8(1):3–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou, R, Ska, B. The Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress. Technol Disabil. 2002;14(1):101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Boers M, van der Vleuten CPM, et al. COSMIN risk of bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a delphi study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field DA, Livingstone RW. Parents’ and therapists’ satisfaction with four early childhood power mobility devices. Can J Occup Ther. 2022;89(4):364–375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Surucu S, Aydın M, Güray Batma A, et al. Evaluation of the patient satisfaction of using a 3D printed medical casting in fracture treatment. Jt Dis Relat Surg. 2022;33(1):180–186.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fabbri B, Berardi A, Tofani M, et al. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the jebsen–taylor hand function test (JTHFT). Hand Surg Rehabil. 2021;40(5):560–567. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2468122921001535
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Sackett DC. Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. Jama. 1994;271(1):59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swingler GH, Volmink J, Ioannidis JPA. Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis. Br Med J. 2003;327(7423):1083–1084.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. Chichester (UK):Cochrane Collab; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Chandler J, Churchill R, Lasserson T, et al. Methodological standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews http://editorial-unit.cochrane.org/sites/editorial-unit.cochrane.org/files/uploads/MECIR_conduct_standards%2023%2002122013.pdf. 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Reviews CE. Methods reference guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;1-38.
   Google Scholar
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ [Internet]. 2021; 372:n71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noyes J, Lewin S. Chapter 5: extracting qualitative evidence. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008. PMID: 21433403.
   Google Scholar
• Bates S, Coren E. Systematic map no.1: the extent and impact of parental mental health problems on families and the acceptability, accessibility and effectiveness of interventions. London: SCIE; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee S-H, Jung B-K, Park S-Y. Korean translation and psychometric properties of Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction assistive technology 2.0. J Korea Acad Coop Soc. 2013;14:3284–3292. http://koreascience.or.kr/journal/view.jsp?kj=SHGSCZ&py=2013&vnc=v14n7&sp=3284
   Google Scholar
• Guerreiro J, Jiménez-Arberas E, Porto Trillo P, et al. Cross-Cultural validation of Quebec user satisfaction with assistive technology 2.0 for spanish population (QUEST-2.0 ES). IJERPH. 2022;19(15):9349. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berardi A, Galeoto G, Lucibello L, et al. Athletes with disability’ satisfaction with sport wheelchairs: an italian cross sectional study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;16(4):420–424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Wessels R, Weiss-Lambrou R, et al. Key dimensions OF client satisfaction WITH assistive technology: a cross-validation OF A Canadian measure IN The netherlands. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33(4):187–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakhsh H, Franchignoni F, Ferriero G, et al. Translation into arabic of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology 2.0 and validation in orthosis users. Int J Rehabil Res. 2014;37(4):361–367. https://journals.lww.com/00004356-201412000-00012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kablan N, Bakhsh HR, Alammar W, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the arabic version of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (A-QUEST 2.0) in prosthesis users. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2022;58(1):118–126. https://www.minervamedica.it/index2.php?show=R33Y9999N00A21071204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan SCC, Chan APS. The validity and applicability of the chinese version of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology for people with spinal cord injury. Assist Technol. 2006;18(1):25–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murchland S, Kernot J, Parkyn H. Children’s satisfaction With assistive technology solutions for schoolwork using the QUEST 2.1: children’s version. Assist Technol. 2011;23(3):162–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, et al. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(1-3):21–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galeoto G, Colucci M, Guarino D, et al. Exploring validity, reliability, and factor analysis of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology in an italian population: a Cross-Sectional study. Occup Ther Heal Care. 2018;32(4):380–392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carvalho KEC, de Gois Júnior MB, Sá KN, et al. Tradução e validação do Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0) Para o idioma português do brasil. Rev Bras Reumatol. 2014;54(4):260–267. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S048250041400117X
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demers L, Wessels RD, Weiss-Lambrou R, et al. An international content validation of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Occup Ther Int. 1999;6(3):159–175.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B, et al. Item analysis of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Assist Technol. 2000;12(2):96–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessels RD, Witte LD. Reliability and validity of the dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(6):267–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt Å. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and content validation of the QUEST. TAD. 2006;17(4):205–216.
   Google Scholar
• Goodacre L, Turner G. An investigation of the effectiveness of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology via a postal survey. Br J Occup Ther. 2005;68(2):93–96. Available from 10.1177/030802260506800206
   Google Scholar
• Mao HF, Chen WY, Yao G, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): the development of the taiwanese version. Clin Rehabil. 2010;24(5):412–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang WJ, Hwang S, Chung Y. Test-retest reliability of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology 2.0-Korean version for individuals with spinal cord injury. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27(5):1291–1293.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koumpouros Y, Karavasili A, Papageorgiou E, et al. Validation of the greek version of the device subscale of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0). Assist Technol. 2016;28(3):152–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colucci M, Tofani M, Trioschi D, et al. Reliability and validity of the italian version of Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology 2.0 (QUEST-IT 2.0) with users of mobility assistive device. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;16(3):251–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakhsh H, Ibrahim I, Khan W, et al. Assessment of validity, reliability, responsiveness and bias of three commonly used patient-reported outcome measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2012;14(4):335–340.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demers L, Wessels R, Weiss-Lambrou R, et al. Key dimensions of client satisfaction with assistive technology: a cross-validation of a Canadian measure in The Netherlands. Assist Technol Res Ser. 2011;33(4):187–191.
   Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Osoba D, Fairclough D, et al. Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(8):887–900. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11284208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(2):171–178. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0021968187900695
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group, et al. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77(4):371–383. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S002561961161793X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, et al. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar