Advertisement

Development of a New Psychometric Scale (PYTHEIA) to Assess the Satisfaction of Users with Any Assistive Technology

  • Yiannis Koumpouros
  • Effie Papageorgiou
  • Alexandra KaravasiliEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 482)

Abstract

This paper presents the early findings of a new psychometric scale called PYTHEIA. It was developed in Greek according to the most well known guidelines recommendations in order to assess the satisfaction of users with any assistive technology device (e.g. robotic, rehabilitation device, etc.). Field test studies were conducted with 147 subjects (inpatients and outpatients of a rehabilitation hospital) who were administered the original questionnaire. The scale is applicable in patients with different diseases, ages, and disabilities using various assistive devices. According to the inclusion criteria selected, all of them scored above 17 in the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = 0.992), Pearson’s correlation (r = 0.984) and Cronbach’s α (α = 0.793) indicated sufficient reliability measures. Test-retest outcome showed great stability. The paired samples t-test between initial assessment and reassessment indicated no statistically significant differences (p value = 0.059). Various types of validity were also investigated. According to the results, PYTHEIA is a stable, valid and reliable instrument. Thus, it can be used to measure the satisfaction of patients with any assistive device. PYTHEIA uniqueness is that it can be used to assess not only the general satisfaction of the users with any assistive device, but also to evaluate independently any individual characteristic and functionality that the device may have. To this end, it can be used for evaluating also new and experimental developments (e.g. robotic assistive devices, etc.) in lab environment and can help researchers assess their products in terms of efficiency, comfort, quality, performance, ergonomics and usefulness as perceived by the end users.

Keywords

Assistive technology Rehabilitation Scale Psychometric Satisfaction Assessment Validation Reliability Questionnaire 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the physical therapists P. Siavelis and D. Alexopoulou, working in the rehabilitation hospital, that helped us in the recruitment process and collection of the data from the participating patients in the study. The work leading to the presented results has received funding from the European Union under grant agreement n° 600796.

References

  1. 1.
    Koumpouros, Y.: Information and Communication Technologies and Society. New Technologies, Athens (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koumpouros, Y.: Information and Communication Technologies in Healthcare. Hellenic Academic Libraries Link, Athens (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Williams, B., Coyle, J., Healy, D.: The meaning of patient satisfaction: an explanation of high reported levels. Soc. Sci. Med. 47(9), 1351–1359 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Avis, M., Bond, M., Arthur, A.: Questioning patient satisfaction. Soc. Sci. Med. 44, 85–92 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Locker, D., Dunt, D.: Theoretical and methodological issues in sociological studies of consumer satisfaction with medical care. Soc. Sci. Med. 12, 283–292 (1978)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Federici, S., Borsci, S.: Providing assistive technology in Italy: the perceived delivery process quality as affecting abandonment. Disabil. Rehabil. Assistive Technol. 11, 22–31 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fuhrer, M.J.: Subjectifying quality of life as a medical rehabilitation outcome. Disabil. Rehabil. 22, 481–489 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Samuelsson, K., Wressle, E.: User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices: an important element in the rehabilitation process. J. Disabil. Rehabil. 30(7), 551–558 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ravneberg, B.: Usability and abandonment of assistive technology. J. Assistive Technol. 6, 259–269 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fuhrer, M.J.: Assistive technology outcomes research: challenges met and yet unmet. J. Am. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 80, 528–535 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koumpouros, Y.: Deliverable D5.2: report on use cases, performance metrics and user study preparations. In: EU FP7-ICT-2011.2.1, ICT for Cognitive Systems and Robotics 600796 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bartneck, C., Kulic, D., Croft, E.: Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1(1), 71–81 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Demers, L., Monette, M., Lapierre, Y., Arnold, D.L., Wolfson, C.: Reliability, validity, and applicability of the quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil. Rehabil. 24(1/2/3), 21–30 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kirby, R.L., MacDonald, B., Smith, C., MacLeod, D.A., Webber, A.: Comparison between a tilt-in-space wheelchair and a manual wheelchair equipped with a new rear anti-tip device from the perspective of the caregiver. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 89, 1811–1815 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hill, K., Goldstein, R., Gartner, E.J., Brooks, D.: Daily utility and satisfaction with rollators among persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 89, 1108–11013 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Samuelsson, K., Wressle, E.: User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices: an important element in the rehabilitation process. Disabil. Rehabil. 30(7), 551–558 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jardón, A., Gil, A.M., DelaPeña, A.I., Monje, C.A., Balaguer, C.: Usability assessment of asibot: a portable robot to aid spinal cord injury patients. Disabil. Rehabil. Assistive Technol. 6(4), 320–330 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Demers, L., Wessels, R., Weiss-Lambrou, R., Ska, B., De Witte, L.P.: Key dimensions of client satisfaction with assistive technology: a cross-validation of a Canadian measure in The Netherlands. J. Rehabil. Med. 33, 187–191 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mao, H.F., Chen, W.Y., Yao, G., Huang, S.L., Lin, C.C., Huang, W.N.: 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. 24, 412–421 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wessels, R.D., De Witte, L.P.: Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices. Disabil. Rehabil. 25, 267–272 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chan, S.C., Chan, A.P.: 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. 18, 25–33 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koumpouros, Y., Papageorgiou, E., Karavasili, A.: Validation of the greek version of the device subscale of the quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0). Assistive Technol. Official J. RESNA (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scherer, M.J.: Matching Person and Technology Process and Accompanying Assessment Instruments, revised edition. The Institute for Matching Person & Technology, Inc., Webster (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scherer, M.J., Frisina, D.R.: Characteristics associated with marginal hearing loss and subjective well-being among a sample of older adults. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 35(4), 420–426 (1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Palmer, P., Thursfield, C., Judge, S.: An evaluation of the psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale. In: Pruski, A., Knops, H. (eds.) Assistive technology: from virtuality to reality, pp. 740–744. IOS Press, Nieuwe Hemweg (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Michel-Verkerke, M.B., Hoogeboom, A.M.: Evaluation of the USE IT-questionnaire for the evaluation of the adoption of electronic patient records by healthcare professionals. Methods Inf. Med. 52(3), 189–198 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Folstein, M.F., Folstein, S.E., McHugh, P.R.: Mini-mental state. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J. Psychiatr. Res. 12(3), 89–98 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Henson, R.K., Roberts, J.K.: Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 66, 393–416 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nunally, J.C., Berstein, I.R.: Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yiannis Koumpouros
    • 1
  • Effie Papageorgiou
    • 2
  • Alexandra Karavasili
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsTechnological Educational Institute of AthensAigaleoGreece
  2. 2.Department of Medical LaboratoriesTechnological Educational Institute of AthensAigaleoGreece
  3. 3.Diaplasis Rehabilitation HospitalKalamataGreece

Personalised recommendations