Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36673791›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

The Rasch Analysis Shows Poor Construct Validity and Low Reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0) Questionnaire.

Antonio Caronni, Marina Ramella, Pietro Arcuri, Claudia Salatino, Lucia Pigini, Maurizio Saruggia, Chiara Folini, Stefano Scarano, Rosa Maria Converti

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06546813 (Outcomes of ICT Assistive Technology in RehabiliTAtIoN Pathways), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06546813 recruitingnot on this map

Outcomes of ICT Assistive Technology in RehabiliTAtIoN Pathways

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorFondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ETSRan2023 to 2025Enrolled50ConditionsCommunication Aids for Disabled, Communication Disorders, Motor Disorders, Cognitive DisorderArmsscales and questionnaire administration
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Differential Item Functioning of the Mini-BESTest Balance Measure: A Rasch Analysis Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Antonio CaronniIRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Department of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Ospedale San Luca, 20122 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3051-1031
Marina RamellaIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, 20148 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2851-556X
Pietro ArcuriIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, 20148 Milan, Italy.
Claudia SalatinoIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, 20148 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7032-8798
Lucia PiginiIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, 20148 Milan, Italy.
Maurizio SaruggiaIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, 20148 Milan, Italy.
Chiara FoliniIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, 20148 Milan, Italy.
Stefano ScaranoIRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Department of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Ospedale San Luca, 20122 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9217-4117
Rosa Maria ConvertiIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, 20148 Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to test the construct validity and reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST)-device, an eight-item questionnaire for measuring satisfaction with assistive devices. We collected 250 questionnaires from 79 patients and 32 caregivers. One QUEST was completed for each assistive device. Five assistive device types were included. QUEST was tested with the Rasch analysis (Many-Facet Rating Scale Model: persons, items, and device type). Most patients were affected by neurological disabilities, and most questionnaires were about mobility devices. All items fitted the Rasch model (InfitMS range: 0.88-1.1; OutfitMS: 0.84-1.28). However, the ceiling effect of the questionnaire was large (15/111 participants totalled the maximum score), its targeting poor (respondents mean measure: 1.90 logits), and its reliability was 0.71. The device classes had different calibrations (range: -1.18 to 1.26 logits), and item 3 functioned differently in patients and caregivers. QUEST satisfaction measures have low reliability and weak construct validity. Lacking invariance, the QUEST total score is unsuitable for comparing the satisfaction levels of users of different device types. The differential item functioning suggests that the QUEST could also be problematic for comparing satisfaction in patients and caregivers.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionSelf-Help DevicesHumansPsychometricsQuebecReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnairesassistive devices assessmentmany facets modelneurological disabilityneurological rehabilitationpsychometricsRasch analysis

Identifiers

PMID36673791
PMCPMC9859407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.