The Nordic Mobility Related Outcome Evaluation of Assistive Device Intervention (NOMO 1.0) instrument evaluates the effectiveness of mobility devices in assessing mobility-related participation, captured by three scales (Need for Assistance, Frequency, and Ease/Difficulty) and one index (Participation Repertoire).
Purpose.
This study aimed to investigate a range of psychometric properties of the NOMO 1.0 in a sample of adult powered mobility device (PMD) users.
Method.
Data collected from PMD users (N = 248) in Denmark, Finland, and Norway as part of a larger study were analyzed using state-of-the-art statistical methods.
Findings.
The acceptability and applicability of the NOMO 1.0 items were generally within recommended values. Some floor/ceiling effects were found and the reliability was acceptable for only the Frequency scale. The factor analysis identified one component for the Need for Assistance scale and six components of the Frequency scale.
Implications.
The NOMO 1.0 should be used for research purposes and not for clinical practice. Better reliability should be established for the Need for Assistance and Ease/Difficulty scales prior to further psychometric testing to establish the validity of the NOMO 1.0.
AndresenE. (2000). Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81, S15–S20. doi:10.1053/apmr.2000.20619.
2.
AugerC.DemersL.GelinasI.JutaiJ.FuhrerM.DeRuyterF. (2008). Powered mobility for middle-aged and older adults: Systematic review of outcomes and appraisal of published evidence. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 87, 666–680. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e31816de163.
3.
BrandtÅ. (2005). Outcomes of rollator and powered wheelchair interventions: User satisfaction and participation(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
4.
BrandtÅ.KreinerS.IwarssonS. (2010). Mobility-related participation and user satisfaction: Construct validity in the context of powered wheelchair use. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 5, 305–313. doi:10.3109/17483100903394636.
BrandtÅ.LöfqvistC.JonsdottirI.SundT.SalminenA.-L.Wengren-EngströmM.IwarssonS. (2008). Towards an instrument targeting mobility-related participation: Nordic cross-national reliability. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 40, 766–772. doi:10.2340/16501977-0244.
7.
DanceyC. P.ReidyJ. (2011). Statistics without maths for psychology (3rd ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
8.
de VetH. C. W.TerweeC. B.KnolD. L.BouterL. M., (2006). When to use agreement versus reliability measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 1033–1039. doi:10.1016/j.clinepi.2005.10.015.
9.
de VetH. C. W.TerweeC. B.MokkinkL. B.KnolD. L., (2011). Measurement in medicine. Practical guides to biostatistics and epidemiology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
DemersL.Weiss-LambrouR.SkaB. (2001). Item analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction With Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assistive Technology, 12, 96–105. doi:10.1080/10400435.2000.10132015
11.
FängeA.IwarssonS. (1999). Physical housing environment: Development of a self-assessment instrument. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66, 250–260. doi:10.1177/000841749906600507.
12.
GrahamM.MilanowskiA.MillerJ. (2012). Measuring and promoting inter-rater agreement of teacher and principal performance ratings. Washington, DC: Center for Educator Compensation Reform, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved fromhttp://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532068.pdf
HarrisF.SprigleS. (2008). Outcomes measurements of a wheelchair intervention. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 3, 171–180. doi:10.1080/17483100701869784.
15.
KottnerJ.AudigeL.BrosonS.DonnerA.GajewskiB. J.HrobjartssonA.…StreinerD. L. (2011). Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64, 96–106. doi:10.1016/j.clinepi.2010.03.002
16.
KreugerA. B.SchkadeD. A., (2008). The reliability of subjective well-being measures. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1833–1845. doi:10.1016/j.pubeco.2007.12.015
17.
KumarA.SchmelerM. R.KarmarkarA. M.CollinsD. M.CooperR.CooperR. A.…HolmM. B. (2013). Test-retest reliability of the Functional Mobility Assessment (FMA): A pilot study. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 8, 213–219. doi:10.3109/17483107.2012.688240.
18.
LaditkaS. B.JenkinsC. L., (2001). Difficulty or dependency? Effects of measurement scales on disability prevalence among older Americans. Journal of Health and Social Policy, 13, 1–15. doi:10.1300/J045v13n03_01
19.
LenkerJ. A.FuhrerM.JutaiJ.DemersL.SchererM.DeRuyterF., (2010). Treatment theory, intervention specification, and treatment fidelity in assistive technology outcomes research. Assistive Technology, 22, 129–138. doi:10.1080/10400430903519910
20.
LenkerJ. A.SchererM.FuhrerM.JutaiJ.DeRuyterF., (2005). Psychometric and administrative properties of measures used in assistive technology device outcomes research. Assistive Technology, 17, 7–22. doi:10.1080/10400435.2005.10132092.
21.
McHorneyC. A.TarlovA. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate?Quality of Life Research, 4, 293–307.
22.
MillsT. L.HolmM. B.SchmelerM., (2007). Test-retest reliability and cross validation of the Functioning Everyday With a Wheelchair Instrument. Assistive Technology, 19, 61–77. doi:10.1080/10400435.2007.10131866
23.
MokkinkL. B.TerweeC. B.PatrickD. L.AlonsoJ.StratfordP. W.KnolD. L.…de VetH. C. W. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 737–745. doi:10.1016/j.clinepi.2010.02.006
SPSS. (2009). Introduction to statistical analysis using SPSS statistics. Chicago, IL: Author.
27.
StemlerS. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 9(4), 1–17.
28.
StreinerD. L.NormanG. R. (2008). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29.
SundT.IwarssonS.AndersenM. C.BrandtÅ. (2013). Documentation of and satisfaction with the service delivery process of electric powered scooters among adult users in different national contexts. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 8, 151–160. doi:10.3109/17483107.2012.699584.
30.
SundT.IwarssonS.AnttilaH.BrandtÅ. (2015). Effectiveness of powered mobility devices in enabling community mobility-related participation: A prospective study among people with mobility restrictions. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 7, 859–870. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.02.001
31.
SundT.IwarssonS.AnttilaH.HelleT.BrandtÅ. (2014). Test-retest reliability and agreement of the Satisfaction with the Assistive Technology Services (SATS) instrument in two Nordic countries. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 30, 367–374. doi:10.3109/09593985.2013.876478
32.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
33.
WeirJ. (2005). Quantifying rest-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, 231–240.
34.
World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
