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.
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.
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.
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.
Outcomes of ICT Assistive Technology in RehabiliTAtIoN Pathways
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- User Satisfaction With Assistive, Rehabilitation, and Training Technologies: Questionnaire Development and Content Validation Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2026Article
- From Technical Performance to Assistive Validity: A Critical Review of Evaluation Approaches for AI-Enabled Assistive Technology.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A multidimensional evaluation of the Atalante exoskeleton as an assistive locomotion device for individuals with complete paraplegia: a prospective longitudinal study in a controlled environment.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Self-image in spinal deformity: a state-of-the-art review.Spine deformity · 2024Review
- Reversed Mirror Therapy (REMIT) after Stroke-A Proof-of-Concept Study.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Differential Item Functioning of the Mini-BESTest Balance Measure: A Rasch Analysis Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.