The need to involve users of assistive technologies in the evaluation of equipment has been stressed consistently and linked directly with equipment use. However, in clinical practice obtaining feedback that is informed by prolonged use within the home can be difficult to achieve owing to current working practices. This paper describes the experience of using the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology in a postal survey and discusses the potential application of this method of administration in routine practice to obtain user evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Audit Commission (2000) Fully equipped: the provision of equipment to older or disabled people by the NHS and Social Services in England and Wales. London: Audit Commission.
2.
BataviaAHammerG (1990) Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 27 (4), 425–36.
3.
CalnanSHermanJSixmaJCalnanMGroenewegenP (2000) Quality of local authority occupational therapy services: developing an instrument to measure the user's perspective. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63 (4), 155–62.
4.
DayHJutaiJWoolrichWStrongG (2001) The stability and impact of assistive devices. Disability and Rehabilitation, 23, 400–404.
5.
DemersLWeiss-LambrouRSkaB (1996) Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assistive Technology, 8, 3–13.
6.
DemersLWesslesRWeiss-LambrouRSkaBWitteL (1999) An international content validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Occupational Therapy International, 6 (3), 159–75.
7.
DemersLMonetteMLapierreYArnoldDWolfsonC (2002) Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24 (1,2,3), 21–30.
8.
Department of Health (2003) Guide to integrating community equipment services. London: DH.
9.
DeRuyterF (1995) Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: do we understand commitment?Assistive Technology, 7, 3–16.
10.
DeRuyterF (1998) Concepts and rationale for accountability in assistive technology. RESNA Resource Guide for Assistive Technology Outcomes: Measurement Tools, Vol. 1, 2–14. Arlington, VA: RESNA.
11.
SchererM (2002) The change in emphasis from people to person: introduction to the special issue on assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24 (1,2,3), 1–4.
12.
SmithR (1996) Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: challenge and innovation. Assistive Technology, 8, 71–81.
WesselsRWitteL (2003) Reliability and validity of the Dutch Version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25 (6), 267–72.
15.
WielandtTStrongJ (2000) Compliance with prescribed adaptive equipment: a literature review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63 (2), 65–75.
