Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): the development of the Taiwanese version

Abstract

Objective: To develop and validate a cross-cultural version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for users of assistive technology devices in Taiwan.

Design: A cross-sectional survey.

Procedures: The standard cultural adaptation procedure was used for questionnaire translation and cultural item design. A field test was then conducted for item selection and psychometric properties testing.

Subjects: One hundred and five volunteer assistive device users in community.

Main outcome measures: A questionnaire comprising 12 items of the QUEST 2.0 and 16 culture-specific items.

Results: One culture-specific item, ‘Cost’, was selected based on eight criteria and added to the QUEST 2.0 (12 items) to formulate the Taiwanese version of QUEST 2.0 (T-QUEST). The T-QUEST consisted of 13 items which were classified into two domains: device (8 items) and service (5 items). The internal consistencies of the device, service and total T-QUEST scores were 0.87, 0.84 and 0.90, respectively. The device, services and total T-QUEST scores achieved good test-retest stability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.90, 0.97, 0.95). Exploratory factor analysis revealed that T-QUEST had a two-factor structure for device and service in the construct of user satisfaction (53.42% of the variance explained).

Conclusions: Users of assistive device in different culture may have different concerns regarding satisfaction. T-QUEST is the first published version of QUEST with culture-specific items added to the original translated items of QUEST 2.0. T-QUEST was a valid and reliable tool for measuring user satisfaction among Mandarin-speaking individuals using various kinds of assistive devices.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

DeRuyter F.

Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: do we understand the commitment?

Assist Technol 1995; 7: 3-16.

DeRuyter F. The importance of outcome measures for assistive technology service delivery systems. Technol Disabil 1997; 6: 89-104.

Fuhrer MJ Assistive technology outcomes research: challenges met and yet unmet. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 80: 528-35.

Fuhrer MJ , Jutai JW , Scherer MJ , DeRuyter F. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes . Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 1243-51.

Gelderblom GJ , de Witte LP The assessment of assistive technology outcomes, effects and costs. Technol Disabil 2002; 14: 91-94.

Trachtman L. Outcome measures: Are we ready to answer the tough questions? Editorial. Assist Technol 1994; 6: 91-92.

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: 101-105.

Galvin J. Comments on DeRuyter’s ‘Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology’ . Assist Technol 1995; 7: 12-13.

Minkel JL

Assistive technology and outcome measurement: where do we begin?

Technol Disabil 1996; 5: 285-88.

10.

Demers L. , Weiss-Lambrou R. , Ska B. Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol 1996; 8: 3-13.

11.

Jacques GE , Ryan S. , Naumann S. , Milner M. , Cleghorn WL Application of quality function development in rehabilitation engineering . IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 1994; 2: 158-64.

12.

Kohn JG , Mortola P. , LeBlanc M. Clinical trials and quality control: checkpoints in the provision of assistive technology. Assist Technol 1991; 3: 67-74.

13.

McNaughton S. Connecting with consumers. Assist Technol 1993; 5: 7-10.

14.

Simon SE , Patrick A. Understanding and assessing consumer satisfaction in rehabilitation. J Rehabil Outcomes Meas 1997; 1: 1-14.

15.

Zastowny TR , Roghmann KJ , Cafferata GL Patient satisfaction and the use of health services. Explorations in causality. Med Care 1989; 27: 705-23.

16.

Demers L. , Weiss-Lambrou R. , Ska B. Manual for the administration of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST version 2.0): an outcome measure for assistive technology devices. Institute for Matching Person and Technology , 2000.

17.

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.

18.

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.

19.

Demers L. , Wessels R. , Weiss-Lambrou R. , Ska B. , de Witte LP Key dimensions of client satisfaction with assistive technology: a cross-validation of a Canadian measure in The Netherlands. J Rehabil Med 2001; 33: 187-91.

20.

Demers L. , Wessels RD , Weiss-Lambrou R. , Ska PB , de Witte LP An international content validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Occup Ther Int 1999; 6: 159-75.

21.

Demers L. , Monette M. , Lapierre Y. , Arnold DL , 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 2002; 24: 21-30.

22.

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: 267-72.

23.

Keith RA Patient satisfaction and rehabilitation services. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 79: 1122-28.

24.

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: 1417-32.

25.

Yao G. , Wang JD , Chung CW Cultural adaptation of the WHOQOL questionnaire for Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc 2007; 106: 592-97.

26.

Andresen EM Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000 ; 81: S15-20.

27.

Chronbach LJ Essentials of psychological testing, fourth edition. New York: Harper and Row, 1984.

28.

Bland JM , Altman DG Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8: 135-60.

29.

Warren CG Cost effectiveness and efficiency in assistive technology service delivery . Assist Technol 1993; 5: 61-65.

30.

Huang SL , Lo JL , Jang Y. , Lin CC , Mao HF Use of assistive devices in patients discharged from rehabilitation ward. Formos J Med 2003; 7: 681-88.

31.

Mao HF , Lin CC , Huang SL , Chen WY , Chi WC , Tsai PJ A survey of awareness and satisfaction on assistive technology services in Taipei. J Taiwan Occup Ther Assoc 2006; 24: 55-66.

32.

Brandt A. , Iwarsson S. , Stahl A. Satisfaction with rollators among community-living users: a follow-up study . Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 343-53.

33.

Jedeloo S. , De Witte LP , Linssen BA , Schrijvers AJ Client satisfaction with service delivery of assistive technology for outdoor mobility. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 550-57.

34.

Jedeloo S. , de Witte LP , Linssen B. , Schrijvers G. Satisfaction with and use of assistive devices and services for outdoor mobility . Technol Disabil 2000; 13: 173-81.

35.

Wressle E. , Samuelsson K. User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices. Scand J Occup Ther 2004; 11: 143-50.

36.

Stickel MS , Ryan S. , Rigby PJ , Jutai JW Toward a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of electronic aids to daily living: evaluation of consumer satisfaction. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 115-25.