Translation and validation of the assistive technology device predisposition assessment in Greek in order to assess satisfaction with use of the selected assistive device

References

• United States Code. Title 29 – Labor Chapter 24 – Technology related assistance for individuals with disabilities Sec. 2202 – Definitions. United States Code; 1994. [cited 2015 Nov 11]. Available from: http://law.justia.com/codes/us/1994/title29/chap24/sec2202.
   Google Scholar
• Parette HP, Hourcade JJ, van Biervliet A. Selection of appropriate technology for children with disabilities. Teach Except Child. 1993;25:18–22.
   Google Scholar
• van Zuilen R, Rodriguez Ο, Paniagua M, et al. Choosing the appropriate assistive device: a card sorting activity. POGOe-The Portal of Geriatrics Online Education. 2009 [cited 2015 Oct 21]. Available from: http://www.pogoe.org/productid/20465.
   Google Scholar
• Isabelle S, Bessey SF, Dragas KL, et al. Assistive technology for children with disabilities. Occup Ther Health Care. 2003;16:29–51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Galvin JC. An outcomes perspective of quality pathways to the most appropriate technology. In: Galvin JC, Scherer MJ,editors. Evaluating, selecting and using appropriate assistive technology. Gaithersburg (MD): Aspen; 1996. P. 1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Winkler SL, Vogel B, Hoenig H, et al. Cost, utilization, and policy of provision of assistive technology devices to veterans post stroke by Medicare and VA. Med Care. 2010;48:558–562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dejong G, Palsbo SE, Beatty PW. The organization and financing of health services for persons with disabilities. Milbank Q. 2002;80:261–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. Joint position paper on the provision of mobility devices in less-resourced settings. World Health Organization and US AID 2011; [cited 2015 May 15]. Available from: whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241502887_eng.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Borsci S. Providing assistive technology in Italy: the perceived delivery process quality as affecting abandonment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;11:22–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federici S, Meloni F, Borsci S. The abandonment of assistive technology in Italy: a survey of users of the national health service. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2016 Jan 19. [Epub ahead of print].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federici S, Scherer MJ, Borsci S. An ideal model of an assistive technology assessment and delivery process. Technol Disabil. 2014;26:27–38.
   Google Scholar
• Craddock G. [Internet] What factors impact on the QoL and participation of students with disabilities using assistive technology; 2007; [cited 2015 May 14]. Available from: http://www.resna.org/sites/default/files/legacy/conference/proceedings/2007/Research/Outcomes/Craddock.html.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disabil Rehabil. 1996;18:439–448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuhrer MJ. Subjectifying quality of life as a medical rehabilitation outcome. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22:481–489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jutai J. Quality of life impact of assistive technology. Rehabil Eng. 1999;14:2–7.
   Google Scholar
• B2B International. Customer Satisfaction Survey: How to Measure Satisfaction. 2016; [cited 2016 Feb 11]. Available from: https://www.b2binternational.com/publications/customer-satisfaction-survey/.
   Google Scholar
• ESOMAR. Customer satisfaction studies. ESOMAR World Research Codes & Guidelines; 2005. [cited 2015 Nov 11]. Available from: https://www.esomar.org/uploads/public/knowledge-and-standards/codes-and-guidelines/ESOMAR_Codes-and-Guidelines_CustomerSatisfaction.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Mckinsey.com. The three Cs of customer satisfaction: Consistency, consistency, consistency. 2016; [cited 2016 Feb 11]. Available from: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/consumer_and_retail/the_three_cs_of_customer_satisfaction_consistency_consistency_consistency.
   Google Scholar
• Gustafsson A, Johnson M, Roos I. The effects of customer satisfaction, relationship commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention. J Mark. 2005;69:210–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Sá DM. Improving User Satisfaction in VO through Systems Usability. In: Putnik G, Cruz-Cunha M, editors. Encyclopedia of networked and virtual organizations. Hershey (PA): Information Science Reference; 2008. p. 694-699. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-885-7.ch091.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 9241-210:2010 Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. ISO 2010.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 9241-11: Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 11: Usability: definitions and concepts. ISO 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Roto V. User experience research in the design and development phase. Keynote at the user experience & user generated content workshop. Salzburg, Austria; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss-Lambrou R. Satisfaction and comfort. In: Scherer MJ, editor. Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. Washington (DC): American Psychological Association; 2002. p. 77–94.
   Google Scholar
• Veehof M, Taal E, Rasker J, et al. Possession of assistive devices is related to improved psychological well-being in patients with rheumatic conditions. J Rheumatol. 2006;33:1679–1683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Frisina DR. Characteristics associated with marginal hearing loss and subjective well-being among a sample of older adults. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1998;35:420–426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Cushman LA. Predicting satisfaction with assistive technology for a sample of adults with new spinal cord injuries. Psychol Rep. 2000;87:981–987.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craddock G, Stankovic A, MacKeogh T, et al. Online advocacy: user experience and evaluation. In: Eizmendi G, editors. Challenges for assistive technology: AAATE07. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press; 2007. p 748–752.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer M, Jeffrey J, Fuhrer M, et al. A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2:1–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Matching person and technology process and accompanying assessment instruments, revised edition. Webster (NY): The Institute for Matching Person & Technology, Inc. ;1998.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. The Matching Person & Technology (MPT) Model Manual, third edition. Webster, NY: The Institute for Matching Person & Technology, Inc.; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Cushman LA. Measuring subjective quality of life following spinal cord injury: a validation study of the assistive technology device predisposition assessment. Disabil Rehabil. 2001;23:387–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Craddock G. Matching Person & Technology (MPT) assessment process. The assessment of Assistive Technology Outcomes, Effects and Costs. Technol Disabil. 2002;14:125–131.
   Google Scholar
• Corradi F, Scherer MJ, Lo Presti A. Measuring the assistive technology match. In: Federici S, Scherer MJ, editors. Assistive technology assessment handbook. London (UK): CRC Press; 2012. p. 49–65.
   Google Scholar
• The Institute for Matching Person and Technology. [cited 2015 May 12]. Available from: http://www.matchingpersonandtechnology.com/validation.html.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. Item analysis of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Assist Technol. 2000;12:96–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Living in the state of stuck: How technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities.3rd ed. Cambridge (MA): Brookline Books; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Fucelli P, Andrich R. QUEST (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology) – Italian version. Milano: Don Gnocchi; 2002; [cited 2014 Jun 20]. Available from: http://portale.siva.it/files/doc/library/a95_1_Strumento_QUEST_Italiano.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Wessels RD, De Witte LP. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:267–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan SC, Chan AP. 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;18:25–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnusson L, Ahlström G, Ramstrand N, et al. Malawian prosthetic and orthotic users’ mobility and satisfaction with their lower limb assistive device. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45:385–391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mao H-F, Chen W-Y, Yao G, et al. Crosscultural 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;24:412–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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; doi: 10.1080/10400435.2015.1131758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J, Woolrich W, et al. The stability of impact of assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil. 2001;23:400–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallerand RJ. Toward a methodology for the transcultural validation of psychological questionnaires: implications for research in the French language. Can Psychol. 1989;30:662–680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:1417–1432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-mental state. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:89–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henson RK, Roberts JK. Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66:393–416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunally JC, Berstein IR. Psychometric theory, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Leplege A, Ecosse E, Verdier A, et al. The French SF-36 Health Survey: translation, cultural adaptation and preliminary psychometric evaluation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1013–1023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman G, Tiene D, Luft P. Adoption of assistive technology for computer access among college students with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:80–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Jutai J, Fuhrer M, et al. Factors impacting consumers’ assistive technology device (ATD) selection. Proceedings of the 29th Annual RESNA Conference, Atlanta; 2006 June.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Sax C, Vanbiervliet A, et al. Predictors of assistive technology use: the importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:1321–1331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graves D, Scherer M, Sax C. Dimensional structure of the assistive technology device predisposition assessment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:E23.
   Google Scholar
• Haley SM, Coster WJ, Andres PL, et al. Activity outcome measurement for postacute care. Med Care. 2004;42:I49–I61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jette AM, Keysor J, Coster W, et al. Beyond function: predicting participation in a rehabilitation cohort. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:2087–2094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vincent C, Morin G. L'utilisation ou non des aides techniques: comparaison d'un modèle américain aux besoins de la réalité québécoise. Can J Occup Ther. 1999;66:92–101.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar